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.
There is NO doubt that 3rd parties can swing an election and if that is the goal sure you may be able to do it, but then the outcome goes to the Democrats for and at least 4 years and probably 8. Is that an acceptable outcome for you? I am making no judgements just asking if you are so mad at Bush that you are willing to give the country back to the Dems.
Sure wish I has DSL!
Oh, you can judge me, I don't care. In answer to your question, I don't vote "lesser of 2 evils". I personally vote for someone based on their stance on issues important to me. That is why, earlier in this thread, I did not say necessarily that I would vote for Tom Tancredo since I don't know his stance on some of the other issues important to me. For all I know, he is a gun control freak. I just don't know yet.
I vote my conscience. And illegal immigration is a strong enough issue for me that the candidate whom I vote for must be in lockstep with my feelings on the issue.
I've just informed my fiance that, in addition to marrying an all-around nice, funny, average-to-slightly-above handsome guy, she's getting the bonus of a furious soldier of the fighting right. She was pleasantly surprised.
So you like the others don't care either way, hell Gore or Hillary or Dasheil are just as good as Bush? Well, to each his own.
Yup, and that's the same attitude that the Australian One Nation voters took and guess what happened?
Yup, the Australian Navy is now stopping boats full of "queue jumpers" and forbidding the passengers entry into Australia. The UN is crying about it, and the Australian government doesn't seem to care what the UN thinks.
Oh, the horrors!
Another person that cannot distinguish the difference between controlled LEGAL immigration stretching out over 200 years and a MASSIVE INVASION of MILLIONS of ILLEGAL ALIENS pouring into America at a hyper rate for 20 years with many more millions to come. People like you won't understand until the problem is right in your own backyard. And the way we are going it will be.
I disagree with it just as I did when Reagan did it. However; am I willing to dump him because of it and let a democrat get elected? No. I am just trying to understand the mindset that would prefer a democrat over a republican on this forum. I have asked repeatedly for a "true conservative" candidate that would be viable in 2004 and have yet to get an answer. Do you have one in mind?
Oh, Dane understands the problem. But it is not a problem for him personally, and that's fine.
I'm just glad people that think like him are in the minority.
So you believe that the Democrats would follow the Australian model?
Be patient, Texas.
Riordan didn't think Simon was "viable", but we proved him wrong.
And damn proud to be associated with all of them.
I appreciate being named in the list. A few of us are no longer afraid to speak out against this insane, immigration "free for all" and this considered anti- American amnesty for millions of criminals.
The problem with Dane is that he doesn't believe our government should apply the rule of law to any legal infraction that involves illegal aliens. He thinks it's OK that they break our immigration laws, employment laws, election laws, commit document fraud, demand welfare, get free schooling and healthcare because, well, they want to be here. I find it amazing how any so-called conservative can believe what is going on today with the tidal wave of illegal immigration can be anything other than the disaster that it already is.
If the plan is to let these people in to make payments into the SS system,it is a horrible failure. Illegals don't pay into the system,they take money OUT of the system. Their children get AFDC,food stamps,etc,etc,etc,and a lot of this money comes from SS.
What is Simon's position on illigal immigration? I'm just asking because I have yet to see anything on this from him. Has he publicly stated his views on this issue?
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.