Posted on 03/18/2002 9:46:29 PM PST by JohnHuang2
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:52:08 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
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
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Like Bystander suggests - win, win!
Just like Clinton
In 2004, as the successful leader of a nation at war, and as an apparent friend of Mexican President Vincente Fox, Bush's percentage of the Hispanic vote should go up, nationally. The "amnesty" provisions in the House version of the immigration bill are not the be-all and end-all of this equation, but just a small part of it.
While I thoroughly agree with those who say, if we're somehow allied with Senator Byrd that something's wrong, I think Byrd's opposition will cause this "amnesty" to be tightened down from the 20% deal that the House passed to maybe a 10% deal.
In the real world, that's okay. We are simply not going to round up and deport all illegal Mexicans in the US. Looked at in purely selfish terms, too many American businesses and farms would fail due to losses of their lowest paid employees -- even here in the mountains of North Carolina -- for that result to be tolerable.
By the way, your equating of the black vote and the Hispanic vote is entirely misplaced. Blacks vote as a block; Hispanics don't. The best Bush can possibly get in 2004 is about 15% of the black vote. But that's okay. Every 1% of the black vote that Bush gets above 10% slices 1% off the margin for any Democratic candidate.
If Bush gets 40% of the Hispanic vote and 15% of the black vote, ANY Democrat in 2004 is dead meat, road kill, yesterday's news, an asterisk in the history books. I think Hiilary! knows that, which is why she'll sit on the sidelines and watch Al Gore auger in and burn, again.
Being an effective President doesn't mean doing everything perfectly in the views of your core supporters (if that were even possible, given the disagreements of various groups). It means picking up the cards you're dealt and playing them better than most.
In war terms, it means winning most battles and losing few soldiers. It does not mean winning evry battle and losing no soldiers. In civilian terms, it means getting most of what you want through Congress, and preventing most of what you don't want. It does not mean getting all that you want through Congress, and preventing all that you don't want.
So far, I give Bush a B+, which is a far cry better than Clinton, who earned something lower than an F, but there isn't any lower grade.
As an earlier poster mentioned, this is chess, not checkers. You only win by concentrating on the 8th or 12th move ahead, not just the 2nd or 3rd one. Bush has grown into the Presidency, which I discuss in my column this week. I'm sure that part of his preparation to get results is the chess strategy of Carl Rove, behind the scenes.
Congressman Billybob
You can say that again.
They are just mad because this interrupts their orgy of Bush Bashing. Now they will all have to wander over to the next divisive wedge issue, and start bashing him about that issue instead.
Anybody want to take a guess on what their NEXT wedge issue is, that will make them switch into the Rats corner??
However, the Supreme Court decision in the Ohio vouchers case will probably turn that into a 2000-pound camel, by approving vouchers for ANY private or public school, just as the GI Bill after World War II offered scholarships to any veteran to attend ANY public or private college.
Read the history of the millions of Americans who got excellent educations under the GI Bill after World War II. That one change jump started both the American economy and its society. I predict that within four years after the Supreme Court decision, school vouchers will start to do the same thing at the elementary and high school level.
As a matter of disclosure, I have a dog in that fight. I helped write one of the briefs in the Supreme Court in favor of vouchers, in that case. But I only write what I believe. I don't take clients want me to present any arguments I do not personally support.
Congressman Billybob
Those numbers don't work well. In 2004, Hispanics will be a majority in Texas --maybe sooner with this amnesty because just like last time, many will come pouring over the border to get in on it. The more recent immigrants from Mexico are far more likely to vote Democrat than the Hispanics who have lived in the SW for generations and the Mexicans who came over around 1910 after the Revolution (when it was Conservatives leaving Mexico en masse). When the majority votes 40% for a Republican they lose.
You are a fool then. Trust nothing that Byrd says. Remember Byrd's condemnation of Bubba? Yeah right.
Richard W.
Mr. Byrd held up action in December on the legislation to increase border security, a measure taken in response to the September 11 attacks. The administration and House leaders had hoped attaching the amnesty provision would push the Democrat-controlled Senate to act, but instead it just fed Mr. Byrd's demand for a full debate on the bill.
The Senate doesn't seem to like the border security parts of the bill either. Why won't they pass the version without the amnesty provisions?
The cheap labor only applies to some, there are unemployment rates of over 20% in many of the counties in Texas along the border and the illegals are flocking to those areas. For some reason business doesn't go to areas of high unemployment/low wages in the US anymore ---(NAFTA), since the low skill jobs moved to Mexico, there is very little need to import many low skilled workers now --there just aren't jobs for them to do. Also people forget that illegals to the US is all part of the way the Mexican drug cartels have built up to distribute millions of tons of drugs to all cities in the US. Very many illegals are employeed by the drug lords and have never picked an apple in their life.
What a complete load of rubbish.
Has someone been spoonfeeding slightly altered information or did you just have to rely on making that one up out of thin air? Wheres your documentation as well, can you produce it? Here are the facts that are documented by the INS, research groups as well as the US census. You may find a condensed version of it Here if you wish to view it.
The immigration number in 1900-1910 was 16.3 million.
The number from 1990-2000 alone was 32.7 million.
The 1990's exceeded the previous historical peak decade of 1901-1910, the 1990s without doubt are the period of greatest immigration in America's history.
these groups were viewed as a direct national security threat, as opposed to some nebulous concerns over "Aztlan" or whatever.
Well, lets ask a member of the supposedly "moderate" group Mecha what he thinks,
"The ultimate ideology is the liberation of Aztlan. All Non-Chicanos would have to be expelled. Opposition groups would have to be quashed because you have to keep the power." - Miguel Perez, Cal State Northridge.
All non-chicanos would have to be expelled? Excuse me? what is that if not racism? I'm assuming this means blacks and asians as well as whites.
MEChA by the way is an acronym for "Movimiento Estudiantíl Chicano de Aztlán" The goal of Aztlan part is the secession of the Southwest U.S.A., which it calls Aztlan.
Here is also what the constitution of Mecha explicitly states. And I quote, "the struggle for the self-determination of the Chicano people for the purpose of liberating Aztlán"
The MEChA slogan "Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada" translates to Everything for the Race - Nothing oustside the Race. Can you tell me what that is that if not racism and explicit racial nationalism?
And supposedly these guys are the moderates compared to the official Aztlan movement.
; 0
2004? From the last census 32% of Texas was considered "Hispanic". Btw this "amnesty"(it's not) only covers 200,000 and is for people all over the country and every background.
So either get your facts staright or lay off the hyperbole.
Whaddaya know. A Democrat who has enough common sense to know that government shouldn't be rewarding criminals at the expense of citizens. Hear that, George?
Will the Honorable Mr. Tancredo and the Honorable Mr. Byrd please step to the head of the class.
Christ's instructions were directed at the individual, not at the state, as I'm sure Bush knows.
Unfortunately, this amnesty has nothing to do with scripture & everything to do with politics.
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.