Posted on 11/08/2006 6:28:55 PM PST by Lorianne
"Now, with the Democrats in charge of one or both Houses of Congress, President Bush—like another Texan president overseeing an unpopular war, Lyndon Johnson—may have his chance to improve his legacy by achieving a major civil rights advance."
I don't think "civil rights" apply to those who are not citizens or sworn an oath to this country.
Great analysis.
Your last line about "sucking the money" really made me LOL!
No wall. Let them in. Let 200 million, 500 million in. No problemo. Bush, what a loser. America is over, remember Bush.
What I meant is that the Jurchens hadn't become the Manchus yet. I didn't phrase it very well.
from the November 06, 2006 edition The Christian Science Monitor (snips)
After the Amnesty: 20 years later
In 1986, the US government offered amnesty – legal status – to 3 million illegal immigrants.
Twenty years ago Monday, Congress passed the largest effort to date to curb undocumented immigration to this country. Under the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), employers were sanctioned for the first time for hiring undocumented workers. The bill also called for tighter controls along the Mexican border. But the bill was a compromise: Enforcement was balanced by an amnesty provision.
Under IRCA, undocumented immigrants who had lived in the United States prior to 1982 and those who had worked as seasonal agricultural workers before May 1986 could seek legal status and eventually US citizenship.
Nearly 3 million undocumented immigrants were granted legal residence under the amnesty. Most of them were Mexican (more than 80 percent) and lived in the Los Angeles area. Salvadorans, Filipinos, Haitians, Poles, and Vietnamese also benefited from the program.
But two decades later, illegal immigration is still a hot-button issue and amnesty is a dirty word to some. Private-citizen minutemen and National Guardsmen have rushed to the Mexican border. This spring, millions of undocumented immigrants and others marched in the streets of US cities to protest federal legislation that would criminalize illegal immigrants.
Critics say the bill set a damaging precedent for future amnesties. IRCA supporters say the word "amnesty" mischaracterizes the bill's intent.
"An amnesty cleans people who have broken the law," says former US Rep. Romano Mazzoli (D) of Kentucky. He and former US Sen. Alan Simpson (R) of Wyoming were the primary architects and cosponsors of IRCA. "But in our bill, you had to prove that you were a law-abiding person who honored the institutions of our country.... So you can take your pick of euphemisms, but if you use the word 'amnesty,' people will get angry, throw their hands up in the air, and scream: 'They're rewarding people for misbehaving!' "
Today Mr. Mazzoli defends the bill as the best way to combat illegal immigration at the time. The six administrations that followed, he says, are to blame for not enforcing tighter restrictions. And now, "It's déjà vu all over again," Mazzoli says. "These are the same issues that we had 20 years ago."
William King Jr., was the Western regional director of the US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and responsible for carrying out the amnesty program. He says that he had hope that the legislation would work at first. But IRCA was a three-legged stool, he says. One leg was employer sanctions, another was increased border security, and the third was the amnesty program. "In truth, only the amnesty program became a fact," he says, and the effort failed.
To John Keeley, a spokesman for the Center for Immigration Studies, a nonprofit group that wants tighter immigration controls, IRCA was well intentioned - but implementation was lacking. "There was a half-hearted attempt at immigration control by the late '80s and early '90s by the old INS," he says, but political pressure brought that to a "screeching halt" by the middle of the decade.
One of the big problems with the IRCA amnesty was all the counterfeit applications, especially from seasonal agricultural workers. Economists Pia Orrenius and Madeline Zavodny studied the effects of amnesty programs on undocumented immigration and presented their findings in the August 2003 issue of Demography magazine. They say that the number of seasonal workers qualifying for amnesty was about 300,000. But in the end, more than 1 million applications were granted. "Most people agree that there was substantial fraud because the document requirement and the residency requirement were quite low for that part of the program," Ms. Zavodny says.
"I don't think anyone says that it deterred illegal immigration," says Cecilia Muñoz, vice president of The National Council of La Raza, the nation's largest Latino advocacy group. "But it succeeded in legalizing 3 million people. Their wages went up, and they're fully integrated into American society."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1106/p13s01-ussc.html
ping
When I read stuff like this - worse yet, hear it coming out of the mouth of the President I voted for twice - I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I've had to observe my state essentially being destroyed due to total inaction in enforcing our border with Mexico.
Sad, very sad, SoCal bump to the top.
I wonder if he has a fence at home, locks his doors or even bothers to close the door. More than likely, he lives in a gated community where round-the-clock protection is part of the package. The rest of us pay the health care of his groundskeepers and supply sons and daughters to clean up after the murders, rapists and terrorists who slip in along with Juan and his weed-whacker. Why should he care? < / sracasm >
"But a Manchu army crossed over it and conquered them anyway."
OK fine let us go with this theory.
Now we are told that the citizens voted to bring home the troops. OK I agree.
We are also told that the citizens want border security. OK I agree.
Lets us combine the two. First we need a law in congress addressing the borders and which suspends any part of Posse Commitatus that would interfere with our troops protecting our borders.
Then Bring 'em home. And I mean all of them. Korea Germany every where we have troops stationed bring 'em home!
Then have the troops build some bases and outposts along both borders and have them actively patrol.
No longer should we risk our troops lives on foreign soil and let America's Liberals and the Main Stream Media undermine their sacrifices for political and financial gain.
Bring 'em Home and let them defend us instead of a bunch of ungrateful foreigners.
This could be the Republican's new platform and hit two issues in one pass.
I think it is a winner.
He's right. We should conquer Mexico, kill their leaders, take their oil and enslave the people. It worked for Romans, Chinese, Mongols, etc., right?
Failing that, however, I'll settle for a wall. Preferably one supported by a minefield.
But all this is irrelevent since the Democrats are now going to help Pres. Bush with his Shamnesty legislation. This will give the Pres. Bush his legacy and Democrats a whole bunch of new slaves on their plantation.
By this "logic", doors, locks, bank vaults are also for losers.
No doubt but any chance of a wall on the borders went up in smoke about 10PM eastern time Nov. 7th 2006.
The last time I checked, the guy who has probably been the most vocal about illegal immigration in Congress, Tom Tancredo, won reelection. In other words, the entire premise is false.
The real losers are the immigrants who sneak in and then demand handouts and favors from the host country, instead of making an honest effort to assimilate to the native country and culture.
I have a better 'twofer'.
Grant them amnesty after a 5 year stint cleaning up Iraq.
If they join up in the next fifteen days they get a bonus offer. After killing 100 insurgents they get to come home early.
BUMP
By advancing the new civil right of invasion.
Note that this right is only enjoyed by non-whites. If the Russians illegally immigrate we can deport them. However, any non-whites from Third World countries must be ushered in and immediately given a position of power, free lunches, and a new BMW.
After all, we've been mean to them in the past by not letting them take over Europe and North America, and we have to atone for that great sin. Would you deny the masses of the Earth the right to live where we have central air conditioning?!
Based on the author's hand-picked examples, I'd say the lesson of history is that we're all doomed to be invaded and conquered. So we may as well do it to Central and South America before they do it to us.
Most of the Washington bunch, including the President of the United States, failed to represent American citizens.
Sad BTTT!
Youre for open borders?
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.