AMNESTY by BUSH - The Truth about Section 245(i)

March 19th, 2002 | Compiled by Sabertooth

[olliemb]

I think you have rewritten the 245i. I do not believe that which you wrote is correct. 245(i) --this was an extension of an expired rule and it was for people who missed the April 30 deadline and therefore they would have to go back home and reapply. Their families (if they had families) would either be forced to go back with them or stay without the parent. The program targets people whose visa expired. These individuals are elgible for a permanent resident visa, but under exisitng law they must return to their country. or origin to reapply and restart the wait to as much as 10 years.

[Texasforever]

Texasforever you have a lot more confidence in Bush on this issue than I do. We will have to see what unfolds.

For just a moment let's put the "amnesty" aside and look at the rest of the bill. Do you agree with the idea of restructuring, the INS to separate the enforcement from the service functions and the merging with customs and DEA? Do you agree with the new student visa restrictions in the bill? Do you agree with the requirement for more tamper resistant visa and identification documents? Do you agree with the outright refusal of future visas from the nations we have put the “terrorist” label on? There is a hell of a lot more in this bill than a 4 month extension on another bill. The House tried to passed the restrictions once and it died in the Senate, so it is obvious this was the "carrot" that went with the "stick". That is politics and that is the way things work. I have no problem with folks that think and rightly so, this is "rewarding lawbreakers" I just have a problem with the gross overstatements being made and the undercurrent of agendas surrounding this issue.

[RickyJ]

I think you have rewritten the 245i. I do not believe that which you wrote is correct. 245(i)

UNBELIEVABLE! What does Bush give you people to make you trust him so?

[Sabertooth]

I think you have rewritten the 245i. I do not believe that which you wrote is correct. 245(i)

Wrong and wrong.

In fact, I used the government issue HTML for Sec. 607 of the bill, which I posted at the top of this thread.

Apologies for the busted links to the HR 1885 legislation. Apparently the links provided by a search on that Federal Gov site go stale after a while, but you can find the links I was trying to make by doing the following...

First, click HERE.

Enter HR 1885 in the bill number search field, and click search. Then click on option #1. On the next page you'll see an outline for the entire 1885 legislation. For the 245(i) mods, scroll down to Sec. 607 at the bottom, and click.

Hope that helps.

[Sabertooth]

In the past, your posts have accused Bush of seeking a "blanket amnesty" for illegal immigrants.

No. Never.

I've been accused frequently of having said that, but I've studiously pointed out it's not true.

Nor do I now believe President Bush seeks a "blanket amnesty."

You have also hundreds of references to the millions of illegal immigrants in the US.

That's true, isn't it?

When you said "blanket amnesty", what exactly did you mean then, if not amnesty for millions?

I take "blanket amnesty" to mean what it did in 1986... An Amnesty for all Illegals.

Is that incorrect?

[Luis Gonzalez]

But you have claimed that Bush would grant amnesty to millions, while claiming that it isn't a "blanket amnesty", right?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...they will be legalized for a fee of $1,000. That's Amnesty."

When you violate the speed limit, and a policeman gives you a citation, is that a "fee" or a fine?

[WRhine]

I agree with all the security provisions in HR 1885. What I disagree with is selling more of our sovereignty away and in the process making it easier for terrorists to obtain green cards as a reason to get some security measures that should have been passed months ago. There are other ways to pass those much-needed reforms in the INS and elsewhere without going down this road. Really, I think it’s just an excuse to pass the 245I-amnesty bill.

Moreover, the dems knew that Bush was hot to trot on Amnesty so I’m sure they took full advantage of that. Don’t kid yourself. Bush has the power of the bully pulpit to get just about any needed reform dealing with security and alien tracking from democrats if he puts enough heat on them. So far, national security seems to be no more than a poker chip with Bush.

[Sabertooth]

But you have claimed that Bush would grant amnesty to millions, while claiming that it isn't a "blanket amnesty", right?

Yes.

Take the common definition that "blanket amnesty" means Amnesty for all Illegals...

If there are, say, 10 million Illegals in the country, and an Amnesty is granted to 5 million, then Bush could honestly say, "There was no BLANKET Amnesty."

The corollary of of this, given this common definition, is that when Bush promises something like "I don't favor a blanket amnesty," he isn't promising much.

Let President Bush be bold, and say that he opposes all Amnesty, under any name.

I'd trust that promise.

[Sabertooth]

ST: "...they will be legalized for a fee of $1,000. That's Amnesty."

LG: "When you violate the speed limit, and a policeman gives you a citation, is that a "fee" or a fine?"

When a burglar breaks into your house, and gets to live there after paying a $1,000 fine...

Has the Rule of Law been upheld?

[Pelham]

They've read it, they're just lying about it so they can keep howling "xenophobe" at anyone who won't tag along with the Open Borders treason lobby.

[Sabertooth]

I'm in trouble enough for things that I do say. You don't have to make up stuff.

Welcome to the strategy of the Illegal apologists.

Did you know that you're a racist and a Xenophobe?

[WRhine]

Bush can bet his sombrero that the wishes of the American people are against amnesty. Shame on you senor Presidente. Shame on you!

Yep, but I doubt the "wishes of the American people" is going to stop Bush from doing his little mini-amnesties here and there each time saying "I against blanket amnesties".

[Dave S]

You seem quite fuzzy on what the INS regulations mean. I'm quite sure that the INS doesn't know what it means either. LOL.,/i>

You want to bet? LOL. Remember Im an amateur. Today was my first trip to the INS website.

[Luis Gonzalez]

In the past, your posts have accused Bush of seeking a "blanket amnesty" for illegal immigrants.

No. Never.

I've been accused frequently of having said that, but I've studiously pointed out it's not true.

Nor do I now believe President Bush seeks a "blanket amnesty."

285 posted on 3/19/02 9:07 PM Pacific by Sabertooth

But you have claimed that Bush would grant amnesty to millions, while claiming that it isn't a "blanket amnesty", right?

Yes.

Take the common definition that "blanket amnesty" means Amnesty for all Illegals...

I never said the 245(i) modifications would result in millions of Amnesties. Never.

Others have, but I've been consistently going with the 200,000 number. I believe on one post I mentioned estimates of 200,000 and 350,000. But I've stayed with the smaller number.

I never said the 245(i) modifications would result in millions of Amnesties. Never.

Others have, but I've been consistently going with the 200,000 number. I believe on one post I mentioned estimates of 200,000 and 350,000. But I've stayed with the smaller number.

Guess you'll need other goalposts.

[Sabertooth]

They've read it, they're just lying about it so they can keep howling "xenophobe" at anyone who won't tag along with the Open Borders treason lobby.

Sure as a skunk stinks.

Rather a remarkable display of disingenuousness, no?

[Sabertooth]

Did your post come through as intended?

I couldn't follow your point.

[Luis Gonzalez]

When a burglar breaks into my house, and is apprehended, a Court imposes a fitting judgement.

It can be incarceration, it can be a fine and retribution, the charges may even be dismissed and yes, the rule of law has been upheld.

It doesn't have to mean jail does it?

BTW, try better arguments, that simple crap doesn't fly.