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

[afz400]

"Bush has peeved and alienated a significant portion of his base." of which I count myself a part of. As much as I loved Bush after September 11, I can't even stand to look at him now. He is as phoney as Clinton ever hoped to be. We had amnesty in 1986 with a promise to tighten our borders. Look what a mess we have now, and Bush is trying to make it worse.

[Redcloak]

Business wants that cheap labor!

We all want cheap labor. Let's not try to make this about "big, evil corporations". Their customers, that would be us, want goods and services for cheap; that means using cheap labor.

[#3Fan]

Section 245(i) is designed to allow eligible people to adjust their status in the U.S. when their immigrant visas become available Section 245(i) of HR 1885 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. Does that clarify it a bit?

We've already established that immigrants who aren't completely kosher can apply under 245i. The question is: What percentage of those who snuck across a fence will be accepted?

245(i) had what is known as "sunset provisions" and was designed to expire in April of 2001 after its extension by the LIFE Act which was enacted in 2000. It is designed to legalize the status of the 3 million illegal aliens which boomed exactly after the first amnesty was passed.

That's what it was designed to do? So 100% of those who snuck across a fence will be accepted?

What we have is a continual chain of amnesties being sold to the people as being limited, yet are resurrected every year with new provisions. The first amnesty created conditions which contributed to the largest boom in illegal immigration in this countries 200 year history.

Boom of illegal immigrants, or boom of those who put in applications?

This bill is designed to now give amnesty to those illegal immigrants which came in afterwards or who did not file by the deadline of April 2001.

So 100% of those who snuck across a fence will receive amnesty?

In plain english, its essentially targeted at people who are illegally here already.

But what percentage will be accepted?

Its also fair to say, based on projections of what happened immediately after the last amnesty that this will create another illegal immigration boom, perhaps even larger than the one before.

Boom in applications, maybe. So immigrants didn't really try to cross too much before these bills?

[#3Fan]

Mr. Bush has bashed himself. His primary implement of self-abuse are the peasants supplied by that suave fellow, Citizen Fox-He of the Land to the South, the Land of Infinite Corruption, Drugs, Death, & a Limitless Supply of Criminal Aliens. By the way, Mr. Bush also walks daily on our Constitution. They of his catagory, all do. The only ends of modern government are Control & Taxation. Every tweak of the rules is to those ends. Every crisi an opportunity for further perfection of their efforts. Try reading a few of Mr. Sobran's columns,...

LOL I don't read Nazi propaganda.

...say from about November through Feb, & see what you think about what he thinks of our vaunted leaders. The NWO is not necesarily a fiction of the extreme paranoid.

And Bush41, that man of intense determination and vision, created the apparatus to rule the world, huh? LOL

Conspiracy is not required where all natural interests converge. Article posted today about the comming UN conference on World Democracy-they only want to help us.

You posted about 200 words but didn't say anything. :^)

[VRWC_minion]

Christ's instructions were directed at the individual, not at the state, as I'm sure Bush knows

So, if a Christian gets elected they no longer are bound by Christ's teachings ?

[skeeter]

So, if a Christian gets elected they no longer are bound by Christ's teachings?

No. As an individual they are still bound by them.

Any other questions?

[sarcasm]

Are you calling me a liar?

[Brownie74]

Here is the text of Senator Byrd's Speech if you want to post it or ping it around.

[VRWC_minion]

So implied is a Christian shouldn't apply his beliefs to public matters ? How about abortion ?

[skeeter]

So implied is a Christian shouldn't apply his beliefs to public matters ? How about abortion ?

Applying godly direction meant to govern our personal lives to public policy would work in some cases, but in others be highly problematic.

How well would turning the other cheek have worked following Pearl Harbor? If Canada demanded Detroit should we give them Chicago as well?

But supposing for a moment that it is an effective way to govern in all cases, do you think it moral for the authorities to show compassion by ignoring their vow to uphold the laws of the land and to allow certain individuals to break laws, unfairly burden other law abiding individuals in the process?

I don't think you can make the case this is what Bush is thinking.

[cinFLA]

Oh no, I understand it. I'm just amazed at this new "ally" we have.

If you are on the side of "your new ally" as opposed to Bush, then you REALLY do NOT understand the issue.

[Be active]

We should all e-mail Sen. Byrd and thank him.

Senator_byrd@byrd.senator.gov

[fogarty]

Do you honestly think the hispanic vote (minus the small Cuban population in Floride) is going to flip sides overwhelmingly and vote for Bush in 2004, even with this? I suggest you take a look at the facts: to wit, even with a bilingual campaign and a half-latino nephew, GW Bush garnered pathetically few hispanic votes in the 2000 election.

Pandering to the hispanic vote has done little thus far. What makes you think this is going to make any big difference in 2004? The latinos are lock-and-stock democrat - it's unfortunate, but it's true.

[StacyMac]

President Bush to the Demoncrats: "All your base are belong to us!" Smart move Mr. President!

[chainsaw]

What Byrd says and what Byrd doesw are two different things.

During the impeachment he said that Clinton's conduct was indeed impeachable, yet he voted not to impeach. We will just have to wait and see what come off now.

[Arleigh]

Bush is not so good at playing this political game as he thought he was. He has managed to alienate his base and now the democrats will get credit, thanks to Robert Byrd, of stopping his insane plan to give amnesty to illegal aliens. Bush is toast in 2004! Toast I tell you.

Exactly. Jorge Bush seems obsessed with driving middle-class white men out of the RepublicRat Party. You would think we was a DemonRat mole...

[Arleigh]

Byrd does Bush's dirty work, and the Dems take the blame! Its a wonderful thing. Bush said there would be no blanket amnesty, and Byrd made it so.

You are either completely and utterly clueless, or you have a very dry sense of humor and are performing the perfect parody of an airhead FR Bushbot!

[Arleigh]

Although the amnesty proposal itself may have made W's most conservative base "nervous" it'll be KKK Byrd that is remembered by Hispanics for killing the bill that passed the House by a good margin while W looks compassionate to Hispanic facing deportation and the break up of their families.

Spoken like a true RepublicRat!

1)Jorge Bush's pandering to Hispanics is not making the "most conservative base" "nervous." It is alienating the Republican's core base - white men - who are key to winning the small, electoral vote-rich states.

2)Hispanics are not worth courting - they are only 13% of the population, they don't contribute money, they don't vote, they are concentrated in a few states that are - for the most part - not battleground states.

3) Those Hispanics who do vote are traditionally DemocRat voters 2-1. They are not politically savvy and won't remember Byrd voted against their amnesty.

[GeronL]

I'm not against legal immigration. I think the merging of the Border Patrol, Customs and INS makes sense though, a united database of foreign criminals and suspects will be good.