Posted on 03/08/2002 1:24:33 PM PST by sarcasm
Friday, March 08, 2002 - WASHINGTON - Rep. Tom Tancredo takes credit for thwarting the Bush administration's last effort to offer partial amnesty to thousands of illegal residents, but Thursday the outspoken immigration foe said he may have been outmaneuvered by the White House.
President Bush has struck a deal with the House leadership to place legislation that offers an extension of amnesty on its consent calendar before Bush heads to Mexico for a state visit next week, the Colorado Republican said. That action should ensure quick House passage of legislation that Bush has repeatedly sought from Congress. It would allow an undocumented person to receive legal standing, such as a valid green card, by filing a declaration with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. It presumably also would require the person to have been in the United States by a certain date and have filed a declaration with the INS from an appropriate sponsor, such as a relative or employer, and pay a $1,000 penalty. "The terms are still up in the air," said Dan Stein, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration, a group that has been allied with Tancredo. "We've heard to the effect that the president wants something to bring down to Mexico." The initial Bush proposal, designed exclusively for Mexicans, once was high on the president's legislative wish list, but it was delayed after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. However, as the president noted Wednesday in a speech to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, he now is pushing for the extension of the amnesty program known by the section of immigration law that covers it, Section 245I. The president hailed it as a way to reunite family, separated by the border. "If you believe in family values, if you understand the worth of family and the importance of family, let's get 245I out of the United States Congress and give me a chance to sign it," Bush told the chamber members. Tancredo, the head of a congressional caucus on immigration issues and proponent of halting virtually all immigration, said he had blocked a previous attempt by Bush to push an extension of the amnesty program through the House. But this time, he said House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., had agreed to place the issue on the suspension, or consent, calendar, making it difficult to defeat the proposal. The Senate might be more favorable to the bill than the House, expanding the numbers of individuals who can apply, Tancredo said.
"What is it that is included in Castaneda's list of demands? Basically, he wants a complete surrender of U.S. sovereignty over immigration policy.
America must legalize all Mexican illegal aliens, loosen its already lax border enforcement, establish a guest worker program in the midst of an economic downturn, and exempt Mexican immigrants from U.S. visa quotas.
Not only that, but also the demand that Mexicans living in the U.S. receive health care provided by the American taxpayer and in-state college tuition.
Speaking in Tijuana, Castaneda became even more bold; he aptly described such demands with this statement: "We must obtain the greatest number of rights for the greatest number of Mexicans in the shortest time possible."
Mind you, Castaneda is referring to rights for Mexicans in the U.S. – NOT in Mexico!
It seems that's what is happening. Fox is calling for completely open borders, Castaneda says he wants the whole enchilada ---which means they get everything they are demanding. At least Lee's way, Mexico would have been placed under US rule, they'd follow the Constitution and there wouldn't be a President Fox today.
I disagree. During our invasion of Mexico, we lost a lot of troops to guerilla attacks. Less than 20 years later, the French tried to conquer and hold Mexico, and they were driven out - thanks in part to guerilla tactics.
Given our closer proximity to Mexico, we could perhaps have succeeded in imposing our rule where the French failed, but at what cost? Remember we had to put down a huge rebellion in the Phillipines after we annexed it; and we eventually promised independence (which would have happened sooner if not for WWII) because the cost was just not worth it.
I see no reason why the same people who threw out the French would simply sit idly by and let us impose our system of government and way of life on them. And back then, there were no welfare programs or foreign aid perks to bribe them with. We would have simply been foreign devils in their eyes, people who looked and acted different, spoke a different language, were not for the most part Catholic, were arrogant and did not treat them as equals, etc.
Worse case scenario, Mexicans fight endlessly against us and become a kind of Palestinian or Yugoslavian problem for us. Almost as bad a scenario: Mexicans become a kind of "Quebec" problem, and we have to jump through all kinds of hoops to keep them happy, in spite of which they threaten to seceed every 20 years anyway (and get more bribes in the process for not seceeding).
Regardless, this did not happen, and we should be glad. The Bushies and the NWO types seem to be trying to reverse this fortunate accident of history, by de facto merging Mexico and the USA against our wishes and without or knowledge or consent.
I don't for a minute believe that we could have imposed by force our way of life on the Mexicans in 1848. We would have been in the same or worse position today if we had tried. Mexico is where Mexicans are. It isn't just a geographical term.
Hell...the State of Texas inspects EVERYONE crossing over from Mexico to see if they have alcoholic beverages....if so, they collect a tax on it immediately.
Chinga Vincente Fox!
no, my orginal STATEMENT was that matters of immigration are by virtue of the constitution exclusively within congress powers. You then tried to make some meaningless distinction between naturalization and immigration. I showed you a number of supreme court cites which proved you wrong. Twodees has been licking your butt since.
Fox wants every Mexican to have the same status as US citizens here in this country. He want's no limits on immigration and he believes he has some kind of authority in the US to decide our laws. Recently Fox and Castaneda were demanding something be done about US citizens in Arizona and the treatment of illegals by them. More and more we are seeing Mexican leaders and Consulates who believe they have some authority in the US.
Ultimately, the blame lies with us for letting them get away with this. We have the leaders we deserve. If Mexican officials look at the USA not as a nation, but as a natural resource they can plunder at will, it should not be suprising, since that is exactly how "our" leaders view the USA. Monkey see, monkey do.
As is their right under the 21st Amendment.
Not a thing....if they keep it SOUTH of the border!
Bush thinks it's the right thing to do, to help our friends south of the border and take in their population. It's going to happen, unless the firestorm from around the country is too much to ignore in Washington.
Nonsense, boy. You've already shown that you can't find a cite giving Congress power to legislate anything other than a uniform law of naturalization for the states and you keep repeating what has already been proven to be a lie. Congress has no such power granted in the Constitution. Also, please note the proper spelling of 'Constitution'. It's also customary to capitalize the word when referring to the US Constitution.
no, my orginal STATEMENT was that matters of immigration are by virtue of the constitution exclusively within congress powers. You then tried to make some meaningless distinction between naturalization and immigration. I showed you a number of supreme court cites which proved you wrong. Twodees has been licking your butt since.
The distinction between naturalization and immigration is not meaningless, it is essential. The Constitution explicitly gives the federal government the exclusive authority in terms of naturalization - naturalization is the process by which a non-citizen becomes a citizen. Naturalization has nothing to do with how that potential citizen came to be living within the territory of the USA (indeed, theoretically, according to the Constitution, the naturalized citizen might not even be living in the territory of the USA at time of naturalization - because citizenship and migration are two seperate matters). If the Constitution had intended to give exclusive authority over the matter of migration (in or out) to the federal government, it would have done so. It did not. Therefore, according to the 10th Amendment, it does not have any such exclusive authority. Ergo, you are wrong. Again.
1990 - 2000 - % Asian increase:
Ca - 30%
Fl. - 73%
Ga. - 129%
N.J. - 76%
N.Y. - 51%
N.C. - 118%
Tx. - 76%
Va. - 64%
1990 - 2000 % Hisp increase:
Ca. - 43%
Fl. - 70%
Ga. - 300%
N.J. - 51%
N.Y. - 30%
N.C. - 394%
Tx. - 54%
Va. - 106%
We are taking our old land back and there is nothing you peoble can do about it!
Thank you for proving our point. Please keep shouting your message in every forum possible; something to wake people up.
While you are gloating, let me just observe there is something fundamentally wrong with a people who, not content to just ruin their own country, insist on sneaking in to another people's country so as to ruin it as well.
And in any case this country was never Mexico's; apart from a few scattered outposts, it belonged to the Indians. Frankly, they have a better claim to this land than do you.
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.