Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

George W. Bush: No Amnesty for Immigrants - "There's going to be no amnesty"
Associated Press ^ | August 23, 2001 | By SANDRA SOBIERAJ

Posted on 03/13/2002 10:18:46 AM PST by Uncle Bill

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-125 next last
To: america-rules
I also heard Rush say this.
21 posted on 03/13/2002 10:34:02 AM PST by hsmomx3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
No new taxes either.
22 posted on 03/13/2002 10:36:12 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
Secretary of State Colin Powell and Attorney General John Ashcroft have recommended to Bush that he grant guest-worker status and - eventually - legal residency to some of the 3 million Mexicans who are in this country illegally.

I'm all for that right after they are forced to leave the country and re-enter it legally. No visa = no guest worker. Otherwise, it's just semantics and hair splitting.....+

23 posted on 03/13/2002 10:36:40 AM PST by otterpond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
Well the jokes on me. This is bull$hit.
24 posted on 03/13/2002 10:40:24 AM PST by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: glock rocks
"So long as there's somebody who wants to hire somebody and somebody willing to work, it seems like to me it's in our nation's interests to make sure the two go together,"

Business bump!

25 posted on 03/13/2002 10:41:19 AM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
Hey, where is the GWB Cheerleading Squad today???
26 posted on 03/13/2002 10:41:25 AM PST by LiberteeBell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill; Victoria Delsoul; Pelham; Travis McGee; Joe Hadenuf; sarcasm; harpseal; RonDog...
Bush Administration Motto:


The Rule of Law:
We Pretend Louder





27 posted on 03/13/2002 10:42:04 AM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
Remarks By The President To The Hispanic Chamber Of Commerce

"I want to talk about another subject that's incredibly important for not only the border states, but all of America. And that's relations with our neighbors to the south, Mexico.

Mexico is a friend of America. Mexico is our neighbor. And we want our neighbors to succeed. We want our neighbors to do well. We want our neighbors to be successful. We understand that a poor neighbor is somebody that's going to be harder to deal with than a neighbor that's prospering. And that's why it's so important for us to tear down barriers and walls that might separate Mexico from the United States. And that's why it's so important for us to stand strong when it comes to free trade with our neighbors to the south.

NAFTA has been good for New Mexico, and it's been good for Mexico. And that's an important relationship that I pledge to continue on. I ask -- I ask for the Congress -- I ask for the Congress to give me trade promotion authority, so that we can not only have free trade with our neighbor to the south, so that we can have free trade throughout the hemisphere.

Oh, I know there's some voices who want to wall us off from Mexico. They want to build a wall. I say to them, they want to condemn our neighbors to the south in poverty, and I refuse to accept that type of isolationist and protectionist attitude. (Applause.)

And let me say one other thing, one other issue that's important. It speaks to the spirit of our nation. It speaks to whether or not we're going to be true friends with the neighbors to the south. And that's the issue of trucking. There are some people who say we shouldn't allow our friends to the south to send their trucks into the United States. I say that's discrimination against Mexico."

28 posted on 03/13/2002 10:45:20 AM PST by Native American Female Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Hehehehehe. BTTT!
29 posted on 03/13/2002 10:46:40 AM PST by Uncle Bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: america-rules
Those are bull feathers you see flying out of his rear. No blanket amnesty? ROFL I'd like to know the difference.
30 posted on 03/13/2002 10:47:37 AM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All
READ THE DATE OF THE ARTICLE EVERYONE. Sounds like another George Bush promise not kept....
31 posted on 03/13/2002 10:50:18 AM PST by fogarty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
READ MY LIPS: NO AMNESTY FOR ILLEGALS

Ya right.

He's just like dad.

32 posted on 03/13/2002 10:50:38 AM PST by Marine Inspector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: glc1173@aol.com
That all sounds just real good doesn't it. But like any other government program it just doesn't work that way. Sell your snake oil to the four new illegal families on my bock that don't speak a word of English.
33 posted on 03/13/2002 10:51:45 AM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
Okay, in seeing these posts I think it is time for a little education on the matter. This is not meant as an endorsement either way in this matter, but merely an attempt to clarify the confusion over the term “amnesty” as used by different parties.

When Bush says he is not in favor of “amnesty” it does not mean he is not in favor of the current bill that passed the House that has been referred to as “amnesty”. “Amnesty” in immigration laws refers to a blanket granting of immigration status to those who have no basis for an immigration status. When Bush says he is against “amnesty”, this is what he refers to. Bush is in favor of the recently passed bill that has been called an “amnesty” but is actually a temporary extension of INA s.245(i). When someone has a legal basis for obtaining their residence (through employment or family relation) and a visa is available to them, they either adjust status under s. 245 or process at the consulate. If they ever had any kind of status violation, including having their visa lapse while the INS took forever in processing their paperwork, then they could not adjust and had to process at the consulate. 245(i) was on the books for many years without complaint of it being an “amnesty” but was permitted to lapse. 245(i) permitted someone who had a legal basis for immigration, but could not adjust status because of a status violation, to adjust anyway by paying a penalty and avoid having to go through the consulate. The lapsing of 245(i) would have just meant that these people would have had to process at the consulate back in their home country. However, they still had a legal basis for immigrating to the US. It was the lapsing of 245(i) together with the 1996 law changes on excludability that have created the problems. Under the excludability rules, a person who was out of status for 6 months could be excluded for 3 years. A person who was out of status for 1 year could be excluded for 10 years. Because of this, you have people who qualify for their residency but are unable to adjust status and if they processed at the consulate could be excluded for 3-10 years. The temporary extension of 245(i) allows these people who would otherwise qualify for their residency to legalize their status.

Yes, it is a matter of semantics. But this is why Bush will both state he is against “amnesty” yet be in favor of what the press is reporting as an “amnesty”. Personally, I think the estension of 245(i) is not an “amnesty” as has previously been granted since no new legal category is being created and those benefiting by this law change must have an already existing legal basis for being granted residency. 245(i) is vastly different from what Luis Gutierrez has proposed which truly can be considered an “amnesty”.

34 posted on 03/13/2002 10:52:07 AM PST by Armando Guerra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
Good find. Bump to the White House.
35 posted on 03/13/2002 10:52:46 AM PST by stevio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
At the time of his approach to Red China, Richard Nixon (a REPUBLICAN for those of you from Rio Linda) was approached by an internationalist businessman who was literally salivating over the prospect of access to the BILLIONS of potential Chinese slave laborers and “customers” (although this rocket scientist had apparently not yet concluded that the Chinese people would be hard pressed to buy his stuff without MONEY!!!!).

This businessman was concerned that Nixon had been SAYING that he was cooling to the idea of an opening to Red China to quell the uprising within the then very much more America-First rank and file Republican Party.

As reported years later, Nixon told the businessman
“DON’T LISTEN TO WHAT WE SAY: WATCH WHAT WE DO!"

It is my strong memory of THAT event which prompts me to post this graphic!

AS YOU READ THIS, IT APPEARS THAT BUSH, DASCHLE AND OTHERS ARE WELL DOWN THE ROAD TO USING THIS PAGE FROM THE NIXON PLAYBOOK!

Look, America – the IDEA not the PLACE – can only continue to exist if we heed the advice of the founding fathers (paraphrased here in the current vernacular for residents of Rio Linda), to wit:
“The Founding Fathers have determined that failure to WATCH politicians – ALL POLITICIANS (even those you may worship!) – is dangerous to the security of this nation and to the freedoms we paid such a heavy price to TRY to leave you and your children.”

“Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is FORCE. And, like fire, it is a DANGEROUS SERVANT AND A FEARSOME MASTER.”
That from that notorious tinfoil hat wearing, radical wing-nut, George Washington.


36 posted on 03/13/2002 10:55:04 AM PST by Dick Bachert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
Let's copy and send this to the White House!
37 posted on 03/13/2002 10:55:47 AM PST by Giddyupgo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stevio
GW keeps playing this game and we will end up with another 3 way Election in 04, and guess who will be Packing their bags?

Come on GW, you're sounding more like Clintoon everyday.

38 posted on 03/13/2002 10:57:24 AM PST by Area51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
"No new taxes either"

Yes, indeed.

Bush Spending Bill Largest Ever

George Bush's Big Government Adventure

Blowing The Budget - Bush's Budget Means More Spending, More Government - Roughly $20K Per Household

What a team.

House Republicans Planning Prescription Drug Plan 60% Larger Than Bush's Proposal

39 posted on 03/13/2002 10:58:30 AM PST by Uncle Bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Comment #40 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-125 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson