.
Posted on 10/18/2015 5:34:20 PM PDT by jimbo123
The Bush administration is considering a proposal to give the more than 3 million illegal Mexican nationals in the United States legal status to remain, senior administration officials said Monday.
The officials said the idea is just one of several proposals contained in a report due on President Bush's desk this week. The issue also is likely to be considered at a meeting between Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox, scheduled for September.
"This is the first time in many a long period of time involving our relationship with Mexico and Mexico and the United States are approaching the border from a position of shared responsibility," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. "Now we have the president of Mexico and the president of the United States and our governments committed to working together on immigration issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
.
Came for the BDS. Left satisfied.
Hey Jeb! George W. wasn’t paying attention to Al Qaeda in 2001 because he was too busy trying to give amnesty to illegal Mexicans.
*******************************************************************************
Just as Donald Trump said, “9/11” happened on George Bush’s watch.
STAY OUT DA BUSHES.
I remember a photo-op in a lettuce packing plant, I remember a border patrol dune buggy and cowboy hat, and I remember the phrase “see you at the signing”. Reagan left the door unlocked, Bush I didn’t fix it, Clinton opened the door, Bush II put out a welcome mat, and Obama now hands out money, groceries, and keys to an apartment at the door. Lots of blame to go around.
We don’t need no stinking illegals.
The Immigration Bill Reagan signed had tough new laws in it. Those laws included holding businesses accountable for employing illegal immigrants.
Had those new laws been enforced, we wouldn’t have the problems we do today.
Recall that the illegals in country in 1986 had come over in the previous 30 years. We had a very low yearly illegal immigration rate with the old laws. The new laws could have made it a lot tougher.
Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama all refused to enforce those laws.
Don’t talk about Reagan leaving the barn door open. It isn’t true.
“...Don’t talk about Reagan leaving the barn door open. It isn’t true.
\******************************************************************
I agree.
Thank you. I see this paraded out every so often. It’s not fair to Reagan.
He was told there would be 1 million illegals signing up. 3.5 million did. He was gamed by the Left and his own staff >IMO on the last part there.
I was against the amnesty. I thought it was a mistake. It was.
Reagan was a good man that thought things out logically. He was willing to trade off 1 million, to get the tough new laws. That’s the sort of thing you have to do when there’s a Democrat House and Senate.
It should have ended any problems. It still could if they would just enforce our laws at the border and inland. They don’t.
We even have sanctuary cities now, but that isn’t the worst of it. We are in effect a sanctuary nation. We are not serious about deporting. Illegals inland have a pass. The laws are not being enforced anywhere.
LMAO!
Thank you. I see this paraded out every so often. It’s not fair to Reagan.
He was told there would be 1 million illegals signing up. 3.5 million did.
**********************************************************************************
Yep, and that’s what some folks do not understand. If there is, in the future, an amnesty meant for “11 million” (and THAT, IMHO, is a huge underestimate) illegal aliens currently present, we’ll end up giving amnesty to 35 million or more. The reason it went from 1 million estimated to 3.5 million actual last time was because it was easy to phony up “documentation” proving the aliens were in-country before the “amnesty date”. Aliens who pour in AFTER that date will have ready access to phony documentation of their presence earlier. Phony rent receipts (and other documents) were easy to manufacture and next-to-impossible to disprove. The bureaucrats who will come up with the documentation requirements will certainly be very liberal with what constitutes proof.
Exactly. Yep, our views are the same on this.
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.