Do you understand the difference between a statement and a question. When I ask whether you support giving legal status and a path to citizenship to illegal aliens it is a question, not a statement. However, I can break the single question into two questions.
Do you support giving legal status to illegal aliens?
Do you support giving illegal aliens a path to citizenship?
You stated the following: “For example: a guest worker with a temporary visa has legal status, but he is not on the path to citizenship. Likewise, if the illegals presently in the country are converted to guest workers, they would have legal status but would not be on the path.” A person that is presently in this country as guest worker with a temporary visa is completely irrelevant to my questions. My questions are about illegal aliens living in this country, not about legal guest workers.
Why are you afraid to say whether you would have voted for or against passage of H.R.4437 in December 2005 when the bill was presented for a vote in the United States House of Representatives if you had been a member of House?
Why are you afraid to say whether you have voted for or against passage of S.2611 in 2006 when the bill was presented for a voted in the United States States Senate if you had been a member of the Senate?
Why are you afraid to say what member of the Senate or House best represents your views on immigration?
Why are you afraid to name a immigration bill that you support in the 110th Congress?
Is there a single immigration bill that you supported in the 109th Congress?
You lied when you claimed the following: “As many GOP insiders have said, if Tancredo is the face of the GOP, they are out of power for at least a generation, maybe two.” That claim was made by one person, Grover Norquist.
Michelle Malkin had the following to say about Mr. Norquist: “Norquist owes a public apology to fellow Republicans whom he has smeared as bigots for raising fundamental questions about Alamoudi and the Islamist-supporting apparatus in America. More importantly, Norquist owes answers about why he partnered with a known terrorist sympathizer, whether or not he now defends Alamoudi, when he plans to stop hiding behind the race card, and what exactly he plans to do to disavow Islamist influences.”
The campaign of lies that has come from those who support giving illegal aliens legal status and a path to citizenship has failed. The campaign to trick the American people into believing that an amnesty bill is not an amensty bill by calling it “immigration policy reform” or some other such nonsense has failed. The American people do not support giving legal status to illegal aliens and they do not support giving a path to citizenship to illegal aliens. Any bill that attempts to reward law breaking illegal aliens with legal status or a path to citizenship will fail in the House. All members of that body know that they have to face the American people in 2008 when they run for re-election.
The American people know that President Bush doesn’t need any new laws to secure this nation’s borders. The American people know that President Bush’s administration doesn’t need a single new law to prosecute employers for hiring illegal aliens. New laws may make border enforcement more efficient. Those would be good. New laws may make it easier to prosecute employers for hiring illegal aliens. Those laws would be good. The fact remains, though, that not a single new law is needed for this administration to make a serious effort to secure this nation’s borders nor is a single new law needed for this administration to make a serious effort to prosecute employers for hiring illegal aliens.
So, are you saying that you don’t have any objection to the guestworker plan? The guestworker visa known as H2C in 2611 aka H5A in McCain-Kennedy?