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.
I am willing to bet that the population of Mexicans in my one town has more than tripled. So I will stick to my guess of at least 30 million illegals here + the 11 million friends and family of the ones about to receive amnesty for a grand total of 41 million.
Of course this may not show up on the next Census, as most of these folks don't do Census. But they sure show up when your sitting at a red light checking out who is in the cars driving by, or at the mall, the movies, the grocery store, etc.
According to:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/
Hall County Ga. 2000 census white population = 71%
Hispanic Population = 19.6%
So I guess it can not yet be called "occupied territory" based on just the census data.
Why must it be all the responsibility of the United States to police the border?
If this were the early 1900's and President Theodore Roosevelt wanted to stop illegal immigration, I bet Mr. Roosevelt would have issued an ultimatum to Mexico that Mexico control its citizens--or else.
FROM: Roy Beck, NumbersUSA.com
DATE: 4 p.m. Monday 11mar02
As you make a final round of phone calls, please be aware of some major whoppers being told by a lot of staffers when they get a call about Section 245(i).
It would be really helpful if you would make your full round of calls one more time to make sure that nobody is still believing any of these myths.
If you haven't called, please do so today and tomorrow.
All of the myths below have been stated repeatedly to our network of callers over the last few days.
Myth 1: The supposed vote on Section 245(i) is an internet hoax.
That is always a good way to just avoid talking to a citizen. Make sure that they know that you know that the "hoax" vote is scheduled in the House for after 6 p.m. Tuesday and under the bill name H.R. 1885.
You may remember that last night I e-mailed you the House Whip's official schedule for votes.
A lot of offices are responding to callers by saying their concern is a rumor or hoax.
Myth 2: HR 1885 has too many good things in it to vote against it.
Many of you are hearing this from people who ordinarily oppose illegal immigration.
Please make sure that every Member knows that all of the good things in H.R. 1885 have already passed the House in December and are awaiting Senate action.
The supporters of the Section 245i amnesty just took the very good HR 3525 visa-tracking bill and used all the same language to add to the amnesty inside HR 1885. It was an attempt to confuse Members and to give Members an excuse for supporting a popular president in his rush to reward (primarily) illegal aliens from Mexico.
But you must point out to staffers that the good HR 3525 is expected to be able to move through the Senate and give us all the good visa-tracking things -- without the amnesty being attached.
Remind people that the net effect of HR1885 is so bad that the ABI Illegal Immigration Report Card has announced that it will score a vote for HR1885 as a vote in favor of illegal immigration.
Myth 3: Section 245i is only about people who are here on visitor visas
Nearly all the people who apply for Section 245i cross the border illegally or violated their visitor visas years ago and have been living as illegal aliens since.
Myth 4: Section 245i is primarily about reuniting mommies, daddies and their dependent children
This is the most persistent myth of all, largely because the White House and even the president continually try to spin the Section 245i amnesty that way.
To hear them tell it, mean old U.S. immigration laws have split families apart, and Section 245i merely allows them to get around some minor immigration technicalities so they can live together again.
In fact, most of the users of the 245i amnesty either are not relatives at all (petitioned by employers) or are extended family and other adult relatives.
The nuclear families that are affected tend to have been put in the situation in the first place because the first member into the U.S. came illegally, got an amnesty and then wanted to add a bunch of other family members into his or her amnesty. All these relatives are here because they broke U.S. laws requiring people to wait in line for their turn.
The spouses involved are illegal aliens who are here by breaking the law and then persuaded an American citizen or legal immigrant to marry them, knowing they were a lawbreaker. As might be expected, there is a phenomenal amount of fraud involved in these marriages.
Myth 5: The INS would not have the money to do its job without the fees from Section 245i
a. The $1,000 per illegal alien barely covers the cost of running the amnesty program, let alone providing significant operating funds for the INS.
b. There is something profoundly corrupt and unethical about encouraging people to break the law so you can make money off it to supposedly discourage people from breaking the law.
c. Almost any money that has gone to the INS in recent years has been wasted, according to the 60 Minutes expose last night.
Talking to Democrats with competitive elections this fall Although the Democratic congressional leadership constantly calls for citizenship for all 9 million illegal aliens, there are many individual Democratic Members of Congress who are uneasy about this stance and know it isn't very popular in their home districts.
If you have a Democratic incumbent with a competitive race this fall, be sure to remind the office that open-borders, anti-patriotic, special-interest acts like Section 245i are the last way to hold on to independent voters upon which their re-election depends.
Also remind the Democrats that they are being asked to potentially harm themselves by voting for Section 245i in order to help Republican Pres. Bush to reach his own personal political goals. Why would they want to do that?
Talking to Republicans who are loyal to the President
Some of you are finding that normally anti-illegal Republicans are saying they will have to vote for Section 245i out of loyalty to the White House.
You will have to try to persuade those staffers that it is highly doubtful that Pres. Bush is going to punish Republicans who stay consistent on their pledge to constituents to oppose illegal immigration.
If Bush hasn't punished GOP defectors on free trade votes, can he really be expected to be vindictive on something of this consequence.
In the end, the Bush loyalists are going to have to consider that their popular Commander in Chief is asking them to harm U.S. security and work against his overall efforts for a safer America.
ACTION---Call every office again and make sure they understand that the vote is Tuesday evening.
Your phone calls are the main reason there will be any opposition at all to Section 245i tomorrow evening when it comes up for a vote.
IF YOU HAVEN'T CALLED ANYBODY YET, PLEASE CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE. PREFERABLY CALL SEVERAL OTHERS FROM YOUR STATE, TOO. Get the phone numbers from our directory:
http://www.numbersusa.com/congressinfo/
If you have called before, please call again and begin by saying that you just want to make sure that they are aware of the details of the vote.
What if we lose?
Many of you have contacted us wondering if there is any reason to go on if we lose tomorrow. Of course there is. This is just one battle in a much larger war.
Even if we lose Tuesday -- and the odds are strong that we will -- we can still gain some victory if our side puts up enough noise to make House GOP leaders not want to do something so uncomfortable again. The White House has made it clear that it wants a whole series of amnesties to go through. So we need to help the GOP House leaders grow weary of the fights and stand up to the White House.
Tancredo's letter to all Members of House today
Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado is leading the opposition to Section 245i and will lead the debate against it on the floor tomorrow (according to info we just got).
This is the letter he sent to all House Members today:
To: Dear Colleague
Subject: Dear Colleague - 245(i), Immigration, National Security
6 Months Later: Immigration Policy
IS National Security
Say no to amnesty for illegal immigrants - vote no on H.R. 1885 and 245(i)
Dear Colleague:
Today, exactly six months after terrorists exploited our immigration laws to attack New York and Washington, I am urging you to vote no on amnesty for illegal aliens. It is unconscionable that we would vote to reward illegal behavior at a time when we should be strengthening the enforcement of our immigration laws. Extension of 245(i) would only invite future terrorists to exploit such lax enforcement.
H.R. 1885, which is on the suspension calendar for tomorrow, extends Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and would permit illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. without receiving a State Department background check in their home country. Consular officers in our embassies, not the INS, should conduct background checks. They have unmatched expertise in the language and procedures of the countries in which they are stationed as well as in analyzing local police records. In addition, their knowledge of local fraudulent document operations and political extremist groups allows them to screen potential immigrants far more effectively than U.S.-based INS employees who have no training or experience in screening for criminals or potential terrorists.
Leadership has attached the text of H.R. 3525, the visa reform bill passed by the House at the end of last session to H.R. 1885, in order to make it more difficult for members to oppose. The House is already on record in support of H.R. 3525, and there is no need to pass it again, with or without an amnesty attached.
In short, there is no reason to support a new amnesty - regardless of what is attached to it. A vote against H.R. 1885 and 245(i) is a vote for national security.
Sincerely,
Thomas G. Tancredo
Member of Congress
-- WANT MORE (OR LESS) INFORMATION FROM NUMBERSUSA? As a NumbersUSA subscriber, you will receive occasional emails about immigration-related opportunities. If you want to increase or reduce the frequency of these emails, click here and make the change at the bottom of your registration form: http://www.numbersusa.com/user
Oh, I do believe it. I was just being facetious about the propaganda being spread by this MALDEF attorney on national TV -- said propaganda is never challenged very well. I haven't seen many, if any, iron bars here in the midwest, but I think there are many people, especially around the meat packing towns who might wish they had them. In fact, I had a rental house near one of those towns occupied by a little old lady about 65 years old and the house was broken into about 2:00 a.m. one morning by two illegal aliens (presumably illegal, or at least they were criminal legal immigrants). Anyway, the only words of English they apparently knew was "I sue, I sue" which was screamed after her German Shepherd made a late night snack out of one their hands.
I spent a week in Anahiem a few years ago and walked from the Disneyland hotel to the convention center every day and there were bars on the doors and windows in that area then -- don't know if that was due to illegal immigration crime or just general crime. What amazed me during those morning/afternoon walks were the number of "gentlemen" who would stop his vehicle right in the middle of traffic apparently for no other purpose than to beat his wife/girlfriend. I saw at least 3 instances of that in one week.
Are you completely forgetting about 9/11? We not only need to police our own borders from Mexicans but we need to police our borders from Muslims. Lets also not forget that most of those Muslims that killed our fellow Americans entered this country "legally".
Teddy Roosevelt that kind of guy. He had balls and a love of America that puts most of our presidents to shame...especially the last 3 we've had. He probably would also put troops on the border in case Mexico didn't get the message. Wanna talk about tough? TR was shot and wounded in the chest during a speech and even after he was shot he continued on with his speech until he was finished. They don’t make em like that anymore.
I know what you mean my fellow Georgian. Was just through there a couple of months ago. Went down Atlanta Street and couldn't believe my eyes. Mexicans hanging out, doing nothing, tacky thrown up buildings with signs only in spanish, trash everywhere. I was one alienated Georgia boy.
And what is so bad about is that our current emperor, King Roy Barnes was down in Mexico a few weeks ago kissing Vincente Fox's ass and begging for more of them. Also, he is pushing for the legislature to let illigal aliens have driver's licenses. INSANE.
Keep you eye on the vote of Saxby Chambliss tomorrow on 245i. He is Jorge Bush's handpicked challenger for Max Cleland's senate seat. Is there any doubt about how he votes on this???? Wonder why he isn't on Tancredo's immigration reform caucus like Nathan Deal is, Bob Barr is, and Charlie Norwood is????? I'm faxing his office in the morning and also calling there. I will come out blazing. No threats, just promises. Also, I bet no one publicises his vote if he votes yes unless some of us peons make a stink. What do you think?
EBUCK
EBUCK
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.