Byrd to delay Senate vote

Washington Times ^ | Tuesday, March 19, 2002 | By Stephen Dinan

[JohnHuang2]

Sen. Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia Democrat, yesterday said he will delay passage of border-security legislation because it now contains a provision of amnesty for hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants.

"It is lunacy

[sneakypete]

Bush is a friggin genius.

Amazing. Absolutely amazing. What next? Will you Bush-Bots be starting a thread in breaking news that is titled "Sun comes up! All part of a clever Bush plan to provide light!"

[Sabertooth]

Bush doesnt get blamed for the immigration clause, while the Democrats get blamed for its EXCLUSION!! Every one here is happy, but the immigrant population blames the Dems instead of Bush!

1. Of course Bush gets blamed, by anyone who values the truth.

2. In your scenario, after the "immigrant population" blames the Dems for blocking this mini-amnesty, what then? Do they flock to the GOP?

What will they expect as a reward?

[quimby]

Do they flock to the GOP?

They did after simpson-misouli. But you are probably like sneakypete who thinks gore would have been better than bush.

All the BYRD BRAINS can flock together now.

[#3Fan]

Show me the written laws of the Native Indians saying go away or ask first.

So when uninvited peoples migrate to a new land, they're not lawbreakers unless the original inhabitants adopt the migrating people's system of law and make it illegal in that manner?

My point is we do have laws which are for used to enter this nation. It is plainly known a visa is required for working here IF you are not a citizen. Why have any law? Let's toss them all OK?

Let's do our duty and keep them out in the first place. The people are doing what people do. We can't blame them for coming to greener grass. We did the same thing 400 years ago when we came here.

Want to see how long we last?

I personally believe all immigration should be ended except for immediate family of American citizens (wives, husbands, sons, daughters only). You're not telling me anything. But I'm also practical. We should have stopped them from entering a long time ago. Let's keep them out in the first place though instead allowing them to spend years here.

It's not uninvited as you want to down play it. Are you going to also insist a thief in your home is an uninvited guest therefore worthy of all your possessions for entering your house through illegal means?

I am constantly prepared to deal with a thief who tries to enter my home. If a thief enters my home, I don't get friendly with him, nor have a beer with him, nor let him do the dishes for pocket change.

Yes it is the same thing. It is robbing American Tax Payers It is taking JOBS of Americans.

It's not taking jobs from Americans. They spend money thereby creating more jobs elswhere. The problem with foreigners isn't jobs or a lack of, it's the fact that they are taught by liberalism to be victims, and too few never develop a love for America because of this victimization feeling. Too many hate America. And they don't want to Americanize.

Why is this so hard for some to comprehend? I believe for the most part many support this are shall we say in need of cheap house servants, pickers, ect? Joe Schmuck gets his bacon cooked in the morning and house cleaned for $2 an hour. Meantime his servants kids go to our schools, use our health care, and draw SSI. But hey thats a good bargain on that maid huh?

The maid spends money creating jobs. That isn't the problem.

You ignored my question. Are you full of it? Why didn't you answer my question? I asked you if this only applies to those that are here legally and you ignored my question. Don't tell me you guys have been bull****ting the last few days. Does it apply to illegals or not?

[#3Fan]

Correction. There's an anonymous article sourced to the Wall Street Journal that implies that some of those immigrants who would benefit form an extension of 245i originally came to this country legally.

That doesn't tell me anything. Does it reward illegal aliens or not?

[#3Fan]

Section 245(i) of the Act allows an alien to apply to adjust status under section 245 notwithstanding the fact that he or she entered without inspection, overstayed, or worked without authorization.

Is that an illegal alien?

[Caipirabob]

If racist Byrd is against it, maybe we should reconsider our opposition?

LOL! It's worth reconsidering any issue when you learn the Devil himself feels the same way...

[#3Fan]

Last week's 245(i) extension was specifically about illegals. Letting Illegals stay = Amnesty for those Illegals. Those who say otherwise are incorrect, lying, or delusional.

There seems to be a lot of confusion.

[cascademountaineer]

To say that people are lawbreakers for moving to greener grass is to say that every people through history were lawbreakers.

This is a discussion of legislation, not a discussion of the various merits of revisionist history or a contest to see who can write the best post-modernesse poof piece.

It's up to the current residents to keep migrating people out by force.

And all along I thought that was called immigration laws. Its up to us as a society to make sure our laws are obeyed. You also just contradicted yourself by the way.

Explain and document if you can.

I believe thats whats commonly known as deny and delay tactics.

There's another thread that says this only applies to people who are here legally.

where is that? Please explain and document if you can.

[sarcasm]

Seems to me that that would be an excellent definition of an illegal alien.

[ffrancone]

But if the Republicans agree to name it the "Robert Byrd Amnesty Amendment" and to build the "Amnesty Highway" in West Va., Byrd will move it forward.

[Sabertooth]

There seems to be a lot of confusion.

There doesn't need to be.

AMNESTY by BUSH
The Truth about Section 245(i)

[TomGuy]

Section 245 of the Act allows an alien to apply for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident (LPR) while in the United States if certain conditions are met. The alien must have been inspected and admitted or paroled, be eligible for an immigrant visa and admissible for permanent residence, and, with some exceptions, have maintained lawful nonimmigrant status. The alien must also not have engaged in unauthorized employment. Section 245(i) of the Act allows an alien to apply to adjust status under section 245 notwithstanding the fact that he or she entered without inspection, overstayed, or worked without authorization.

So, if they are "eligible" for legal admission, let them apply by legal means. That whole "description" of the law is legaleze gibberish which opens up dozens of contradictory loopholes.

The GWB Team made a mistake supporting/pushing this provision of the bill. Amnesty was a "sore" topic when it was first passed in the mid 1990's. After 9-11, after the INS fiasco with the Atta entry approval, the GWB Team should have looked at the polls reflecting the mood of the Nation on this issue. Most polls were 80%+ opposed to amnesty--due in part to the recent attacks on America.

GWB Team may have been playing political "strategery" with this--but many of the people opposing amnesty will see it as a sell out. GWB Team has given the Dems a hot button issue. Bad "strategery" for GWB.

I thank Senator Byrd--on this issue. GWB Team is wrong on this one.

[#3Fan]

And all along I thought that was called immigration laws.

Exactly. Why didn't we enforce them? Because the American people didn't care enough. Is that the migrating people's fault? No. There just doing the same thing we did 400 years ago.

Its up to us as a society to make sure our laws are obeyed. You also just contradicted yourself by the way.

How's that? They are termed illegal aliens, not lawbreakers. The term "lawbreaker" implies that they are here simply to rob, etc.

I believe thats whats commonly known as deny and delay tactics.

Not at all. All week you guys have said that this bills legalizes illegal aliens. Others has said it doesn't. I honestly didn't know. I'm still not sure. The bill says they may "apply". I don't know what the standards of acceptance will be. Maybe only one in 100,000 will meet conditions, who knows.

where is that? Please explain and document if you can.

I just did. I linked it earlier on this thread. Check my posts for it.

[#3Fan]

Seems to me that that would be an excellent definition of an illegal alien.

Looks like it. But it does say they may just "apply". Perhaps only 1 in 100,000 will be accepted.

[evad]

How the heck did we end up on the same side as this racist old Rat?

This old imperial wizard grand dragon KKK rat has become the enemy of our enemy...for this brief point in time.

It will pass.

[nygoose]

I'm not so sure about Mr. Rove, although I would like you to be right.

[#3Fan]

There doesn't need to be.

This disqualifies almost all illegal aliens:

The alien must have been inspected and admitted or paroled, be eligible for an immigrant visa and admissible for permanent residence, and, with some exceptions, have maintained lawful nonimmigrant status. The alien must also not have engaged in unauthorized employment.

[grania]

Bush doesnt get blamed for the immigration clause, while the Democrats get blamed for its EXCLUSION!! Every one here is happy, but the immigrant population blames the Dems instead of Bush!

If your interpretation is correct, this is, indeed, very good politics. But it's a really awful way to end the mess the country is in, both in terms of values and security. We need our government (from the President on down) saying STAY HOME.

It's time for BOTH PARTIES to say...close the doors, we have enough Americans, illegals go home and stay there; you broke our laws. Senator Byrd just might've saved the nation, along with Representative Tarecedo (sp).

[sarcasm]

I'm sure that the INS will be capable of handling this workload with their usual efficiency.