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

Skip to comments.

HRES 365 EH In the House of Representatives, U.S
http://thomas.loc.gov ^ | March 12, 2002 | In the House of Representatives

Posted on 03/13/2002 5:29:58 PM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last
To: itsahoot
Sec. 401. Study of the feasibility of a North American National Security Program. =Open Borders

If you read the rest of 401 you would see that this not not translate to open borders. What it does is push the pre-travel inspection/security process out to include foriegn travel to Mexico and Canada. This makes all the sense in the world to me since we can not possibly completely seal off our north and south borders, even if that were the policy.

21 posted on 03/14/2002 6:56:48 AM PST by Magnum44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
not not = does not
22 posted on 03/14/2002 6:57:46 AM PST by Magnum44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: janetgreen
ACTION ITEM: Section 245(i) encourages illegal immigration; it sends the message that it is OK to break the law as long the alien can pay $1,000 to the INS. The vote on this is scheduled for NEXT WEEK. Please contact your Senators right away and urge them to oppose any extension of Section 245(i) either as a freestanding bill or by any other means tried to pass the loophole. CLICK BELOW: http://www.conservativehq.com/031502.htm
23 posted on 03/15/2002 4:57:51 AM PST by jgrubbs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
My Rep. voted against this bill, I contacted my Senators, but I doubt they care what I have to say.

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 53
(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)

      H RES 365     2/3 YEA-AND-NAY     12-MAR-2002   6:58 PM
      QUESTION: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree
      BILL TITLE: Providing for the concurrence by the House with amendments in the amendment of the Senate to H.R. 1885.

YEAS NAYS PRES NV
REPUBLICAN 92 123   6
DEMOCRATIC 182 13   16
INDEPENDENT 1 1    
TOTALS 275 137   22

--- YEAS    275 ---

Abercrombie Hall (OH) Olver
Ackerman Harman Osborne
Allen Hart Ose
Andrews Hastings (FL) Otter
Armey Hastings (WA) Owens
Baca Hill Oxley
Baird Hinchey Pallone
Baldacci Hobson Pascrell
Baldwin Hoeffel Pastor
Becerra Holden Paul
Berkley Holt Payne
Berman Honda Pelosi
Berry Hooley Petri
Biggert Houghton Phelps
Bishop Hoyer Pomeroy
Blumenauer Hyde Portman
Boehlert Inslee Price (NC)
Boehner Israel Pryce (OH)
Bonilla Issa Quinn
Bonior Jackson (IL) Radanovich
Bono Jefferson Rahall
Borski John Rangel
Boswell Johnson (CT) Regula
Boucher Johnson (IL) Reyes
Brady (PA) Johnson, E. B. Reynolds
Brown (FL) Jones (OH) Rivers
Brown (OH) Kanjorski Rodriguez
Buyer Kelly Roemer
Calvert Kennedy (MN) Rogers (KY)
Cannon Kennedy (RI) Ros-Lehtinen
Capps Kildee Ross
Capuano Kilpatrick Rothman
Cardin Kind (WI) Roybal-Allard
Carson (OK) King (NY) Rush
Castle Kirk Ryan (WI)
Chabot Kleczka Sabo
Clay Knollenberg Sanchez
Clayton Kolbe Sanders
Clyburn Kucinich Sandlin
Condit LaFalce Sawyer
Conyers Lampson Schakowsky
Costello Langevin Schiff
Cox Lantos Scott
Coyne Larsen (WA) Sensenbrenner
Cramer Larson (CT) Serrano
Crowley Latham Shaw
Cummings LaTourette Shays
Cunningham Leach Sherman
Davis (CA) Lee Simmons
Davis (FL) Levin Simpson
Davis, Tom Lewis (CA) Skeen
DeFazio Lewis (GA) Skelton
DeGette Lofgren Slaughter
Delahunt Lucas (KY) Smith (NJ)
DeLauro Luther Smith (TX)
DeLay Lynch Smith (WA)
Deutsch Maloney (CT) Snyder
Diaz-Balart Maloney (NY) Solis
Dicks Markey Souder
Dingell Mascara Spratt
Doggett Matheson Stark
Dooley Matsui Stenholm
Doyle McCarthy (MO) Strickland
Dreier McCarthy (NY) Sununu
Dunn McCollum Tanner
Edwards McDermott Tauscher
Ehlers McGovern Tauzin
Ehrlich McHugh Terry
Engel McIntyre Thomas
English McKeon Thompson (CA)
Etheridge McKinney Thornberry
Evans McNulty Tiahrt
Farr Meehan Tiberi
Fattah Meek (FL) Tierney
Filner Meeks (NY) Towns
Fletcher Menendez Turner
Foley Millender-McDonald Udall (CO)
Ford Miller, George Udall (NM)
Fossella Mink Velazquez
Frank Mollohan Walsh
Frost Moore Waters
Gephardt Moran (VA) Watkins (OK)
Gibbons Morella Watson (CA)
Gilchrest Murtha Watt (NC)
Gillmor Nadler Watts (OK)
Gilman Napolitano Waxman
Gonzalez Nethercutt Weller
Goss Ney Wilson (NM)
Green (TX) Northup Woolsey
Green (WI) Nussle Wu
Grucci Oberstar Wynn
Gutierrez Obey
--- NAYS    137 ---

Aderholt Goodlatte Pitts
Akin Gordon Platts
Bachus Graham Pombo
Baker Granger Putnam
Ballenger Graves Ramstad
Barcia Greenwood Rehberg
Barr Gutknecht Riley
Bartlett Hall (TX) Rogers (MI)
Bass Hansen Rohrabacher
Bereuter Hayes Roukema
Bilirakis Hayworth Royce
Blunt Hefley Ryun (KS)
Boozman Herger Saxton
Boyd Hilliard Schaffer
Brady (TX) Hoekstra Schrock
Brown (SC) Horn Sessions
Bryant Hostettler Shadegg
Burr Hulshof Sherwood
Callahan Hunter Shimkus
Camp Isakson Shows
Cantor Istook Shuster
Capito Jenkins Smith (MI)
Chambliss Jones (NC) Stearns
Clement Kaptur Stump
Coble Keller Stupak
Collins Kerns Sullivan
Combest Kingston Tancredo
Cooksey LaHood Taylor (MS)
Crane Lewis (KY) Taylor (NC)
Crenshaw Linder Thune
Cubin LoBiondo Thurman
Culberson Lucas (OK) Toomey
Davis, Jo Ann Manzullo Upton
Deal McCrery Visclosky
DeMint McInnis Vitter
Duncan Mica Walden
Emerson Miller, Dan Wamp
Everett Miller, Gary Weldon (FL)
Ferguson Miller, Jeff Weldon (PA)
Flake Moran (KS) Whitfield
Forbes Myrick Wicker
Frelinghuysen Norwood Wilson (SC)
Gallegly Pence Wolf
Ganske Peterson (MN) Young (AK)
Gekas Peterson (PA) Young (FL)
Goode Pickering
--- NOT VOTING    22 ---

Barrett Eshoo Ortiz
Barton Hilleary Sweeney
Bentsen Hinojosa Thompson (MS)
Blagojevich Jackson-Lee (TX) Traficant
Burton Johnson, Sam Weiner
Carson (IN) Lipinski Wexler
Davis (IL) Lowey
Doolittle Neal



24 posted on 03/15/2002 4:59:43 AM PST by jgrubbs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Magnum44
What it does is push the pre-travel inspection/security process out to include foriegn travel to Mexico and Canada. This makes all the sense in the world to me since we can not possibly completely seal off our north and south borders, even if that were the policy.
This brings to mind an old song made popular in the movie
Might Joe Young staring Faye Raye "Beautiful Dreamer....
25 posted on 03/15/2002 9:46:52 AM PST by itsahoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
Its called layered defense. And other than quote gibberish songs, you haven't told me whats wrong with a study of this.
26 posted on 03/15/2002 10:39:47 AM PST by Magnum44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999
245(i) is an amnisty law that gave criminals three years to become legal. This bill extends the amnesty period.

It is a backdoor way to grant amnesty without calling it amnesty. It allows the administration to say there is no NEW amnesty, but still let the criminals have more time.

The only people who are shocked by this, are the ones who didn't parse the earlier statements about amnesty properly. They still haven't learned that you have to parse every word of every statement and try to figure out how many ways it can b interpurated. It is the only way to know what the administration is saying.

27 posted on 03/15/2002 11:08:20 AM PST by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
(be interpreted.) My Bad
28 posted on 03/15/2002 11:15:33 AM PST by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jgrubbs
Please contact your Senators right away and urge them to oppose any extension of Section 245(i) either as a freestanding bill or by any other means tried to pass the loophole.

DONE!

29 posted on 03/15/2002 3:13:15 PM PST by janetgreen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Magnum44
you haven't told me whats wrong with a study of this.

If in 10 years illegal immigration has abated except by
means of legalization or amnesty, I will kiss your posterior
in a public place of your choosing.

We have been through this same dance before, I was implying
that it is wishful thinking to believe that this legislation
will make one bit of difference. It is already against the law
to be an illegal immigrant. And as you probably have observed
that hasn't meant didley squat. Neither will this law.

30 posted on 03/15/2002 9:06:08 PM PST by itsahoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: seamole
The Attorney General may accept such application only if the alien remits with such application a sum equalling $1,000 as of the date of receipt of the application, but such sum shall not be required from a child under the age of seventeen, or an alien who is the spouse or unmarried child of an individual who obtained temporary or permanent resident status under section 1160 or 1255a of this title or section 202 of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 at any date, who -

OK, it costs a thousand bucks to get started ('bout a hundred 1 gram vials of coke...)

(ii) entered the United States before May 5, 1988, resided in the United States on May 5, 1988, and is not a lawful permanent resident; and...

And as long as you didn't enter the country more than 14 years ago......

It's Party Time Already....

Play kill the cracker....

31 posted on 03/15/2002 9:20:13 PM PST by unamused
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
Your post 11 equated a feasability study with open borders. Now you change your argument to one about illegal aliens and amnesty. Place stay focused or debate with someone else.

I responded to the issue of the feasability study and pointed out that it was a step toward widening the security net where we attempt to detect infiltration into the US via the North American continent by terrorist or known enemies of the US.

I also have stated on numerous occasions that I do not believe in amnesty as a policy, but that I reserve judgement of GWB and others until the end of the game, or when it is obvious what the big picture strategy is. Believe it or not there are conservative arguments for, as well as against, a limited amnesty. When you understand that either way it comes down, there are costs and benefits, then suddenly if the issue goes against your preferences, at least you know there is an up side. The current admin is smart and is playing high stakes poker to bring this country back to center right despite the Dasholes and Gephards out there trying to obstruct at any price. They will have to play hardall sometimes and the will have to play politics other times.

So far, while I haven't seen all the good legislation come through signed that I would prefer (thanks in large part to an obstructionist Senate), I also note that I have not seen bad legislature come through. While it all gets talked about and peoples blood pressure gets all worked up over things, CFR, Amnesty, and such mostly wind up stuck in committee and die. The education bill may be a mild exception to the rule.

32 posted on 03/15/2002 10:11:50 PM PST by Magnum44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 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