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.
B76, That "something" is the "reconquest" of the southern United States of America. The U.S. of A. is too BIG for a globalist cabal to control. It MUST be broken up into smaller areas. Thus the "Balkanization" efforts by the globalist left and right. Or the "two wings of th esame bird of prey" that I call the RepOcrats Internationale.
And, the "conservative" politicians BETTER go along, or they WILL lose the next election. OR, as Bob Ehrlich, here in Maryland who sometimes questions the policies, being asked by the "Republicans to take on Kathlene Kennedy Townsend in what MUST be a losing gubernatorial race for him. It's how they got rid of the BEST Republican representative they had at the time, Helen Delich Bentley. Conservatives. Yeh. O'kay. Peace and love, George.
Now, in 1996 congress passed an immigration reform which, among other things, stated that if a non-US citizen overstayed their visa for just one day (or came here illegally to begin with), they would be barred from entering this country for any reason for 3 years. And if they overstayed 180 days, they would be barred from entering this country again for 10 years (literally, only an act from congress could waiver these penalties, and it looks like that's what's being done here for all the illegals who spent their time anticipating such an event as HR 1885) The message was clear, as expressed by the Republican controlled House and Senate: If you don't play by our rules, we don't want you here.
But 7 years and many RINO's later, we are sending a different message: Our laws carry little weight.
Two words: Social Security.
Roger that! I will go down fighting, literally if needed, and someday it may come to that. This is my country, we are a nation of laws.
Our government getting in bed with a country run by criminal, corrupt dictators is stunning, an then giving them gifts and bowing to their demands while standing on the backs of American citizens is beyond belief! We are being invaded from nations where the people either don't have enough guts or drive to make there own countries right. We don't needs these types of people here. Period!
The two beltway parties are driving us down the road to the incremental destruction of our constitution, our sovereignty and our cherished freedoms. This is a fact.
I am confident that along with myself and millions of my brothers, we will make that road as bumpy and as hazardous as we possibly can for them.
I love my country, I fear my government.
Sir, I never insinuated that at all about Ronald Reagan, and your remarks towards George W are inflammatory, derogatory, and inaccurate.
And if you find my remarks tiresome, I'd suggest a few cups of expresso if you choose to read any in the future.
Because I've no intent of changing my tune.
Dude, you lost a "honesty" bet, get over it.
Oh, you hurt my feelings when you talk to me that way. Puhh..leeze. You're free to say what ever you think, but when you make remarks like the one below about someone who blows anyone away as a President in the 20th century, I'll do my best to refute it.
Now let me tell you what Reagan did believe: he believed that America, unlike places as the USSR or Red China didn't have to build walls, real or symbolic, to keep people in, or keep out those seeking economic liberty and freedom.
Again, Ronald Reagan, like most of us I suspect believed in some form of legal immigration. But Mr. Reagan was clear that did not extend to illegals. Bush is attempting to legalize hundreds of thousands or more of illegal immigrants. That's what they are, and he justifies it not on some political compromise Reagan made in 1986, which was coupled with strong guarantees the borders would be better enforced, as well as the laws against those hiring illegals. No Bush bases his desire to legitimize illegals on some teary-eyed "family values don't stop at the Rio Grande" goobledygook.
You are implying that Bush is doing it for the same reasons as Reagan had, and that's not true. Reagan's actions, however mistaken, were political, Bush's are ideological. He has a vision in my opinion of open borders, and a North American union similar to Europe's. That is scary, and not Reagan's vision by any standard.
Well sir, you and I disagree on these matters.
It is not my intent to get in a heated argument with you over this, because after all, that'll get us nowhere in defeating the real enemy of freedom: liberalism/socialism.
I think folks like you and I are like two players on a football team. Both of us want our team to win, but we might not always agree on the play calling during the game.
I include the following links, because I believe they speak for the Republican Party I believe in, and adhere to.
As I said in a previous post, I think Reagan was a strong believer in legal immigration, and that's fine, although I think today's numbers of almost a million a year are a bit much. During the eighties, the annual rate was about 500,000 and I never heard Reagan say we needed to increase it.
I'm not trying to get into a heated argument with you either, but I believe you're taking Reagan's views on legal immigration and carrying them over to the illegal ones as well. His statements contradict that. The only thing I hear coming out of Bush's mouth today is we should try to find ways to legalize all the illegals here. That is not in the best interest of the country, or the Republican party.
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.