Posted on 03/22/2002 1:12:55 PM PST by Jim Robinson
"Is" was simple.
Just cross out Clinton's name and put in Jorge Bush. Illegal amnesty
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.
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
President Bill Clinton is demonstrating his disdain for the responsibility of U.S. citizenship by promoting legislation that would award amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Joined by congressional Democrats, Mr. Clinton would simply allow those individuals who broke the law in entering this country to be forgiven their transgressions.
So adamant is Clinton about the amnesty that he is willing to tie up the federal budget over the issue. Clinton has attached the amnesty measure to appropriations legislation, obscuring the amnesty issue from public hearings and providing no opportunity for any study of its impact.
But the amnesty cheapens the efforts of those millions who have immigrated to this country by legal means and have become constructive citizens. It would reward lawlessness and subterfuge and add a tremendous financial burden to border states. According to one study, the net cost of a similar amnesty in 1986 was more than $78 billion.
Even worse, an amnesty would spark another wave of illegal immigration. It's estimated that 3 million illegal immigrants poured across the borders after the 1986 amnesty.
Tying the amnesty to federal appropriations is a political ploy designed to appeal to immigrant voters in those border states. But those voters should see through the Democrats' posturing and demand diligent control of our borders.
The United States always has welcomed the teeming masses, yearning to be free. But the nation has a duty to make sure that those who enter are willing to accept the responsibility of that freedom. Granting amnesty to those who have ignored the law of the land mocks that freedom.
"President of the United States Wants To Grant Amnesty Up To 4 Million Illegal Aliens"
AN AMNESTY BY ANY OTHER NAME IS STILL AN AMNESTY
A DAY IN THE LIFE OF GEORGE W. BUSH
Statement by the President
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 20, 2002
Statement by the President
Like many Republicans and Democrats in the Congress, I support common-sense reforms to end abuses in our campaign finance system. The reforms passed today, while flawed in some areas, still improve the current system overall, and I will sign them into law.
The legislation makes some important progress on the timeliness of disclosure, individual contribution limits, and banning soft money from corporations and labor unions, but it does present some legitimate constitutional questions. I continue to believe the best reform is full and timely disclosure of campaign contributions.
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020320-21.html
The George W. Bush Lie
ABC News's This Week on January 23, 2000:
GEORGE F. WILL: I want to see if you agree with those who say it would be bad for the First Amendment? I know you're not a lawyer, you say that with some pride, but do you think a president, and we've got a lot of non-lawyer presidents, has a duty to make an independent judgment of what is and is not constitutional, and veto bills that, in his judgment, he thinks are unconstitutional?
GOV. BUSH: I do.
GEORGE WILL: In which case, would you veto the McCain-Feingold bill, or the Shays-Meehan bill?
GOV. BUSH: That's an interesting question. I I yes I would.
Source
George W. Bush: No Amnesty for Immigrants - "There's going to be no amnesty"
Bush says he won't legalize illegal immigrants
Bush Administration Wants to Extend Immigration "Amnesty"
Bush Proposing "Amnesty" for Illegal Aliens
Immigration "Amnesty" Passes House - Fox News
Congress OKs "Amnesty" for Illegal Aliens
House clears "amnesty" bill under pressure from Bush
Darkness By Design For "Amnesty" Move
AMNESTY by BUSH - The Truth about Section 245(i)
INS Memo: Sec. 245(i) filings
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.
LINK.
How Do I Benefit From Section 245(i)?
Our immigration laws allow qualified individuals to enter the United States as lawful permanent residents ("green card" holders) after they obtain immigrant visas from a consulate or embassy outside the United States or, for many immigrants already lawfully in the United States, through a process called "adjustment of status." If you entered the United States unlawfully, if you entered with permission but did not stay in lawful status, or if you worked without permission, you normally would have to leave the United States in order to apply for an immigrant visa. Special rules under section 245(i) may allow you to apply to adjust status without leaving the United States.
You might need section 245(i) if you:
"Indeed, during the immigration debate of 1984 we suggested an ultimate goal to guide passing policies--a constitutional amendment: "There shall be open borders." - July 2, 2001 - ROBERT L. BARTLEY - Editor of The Wall Street Journal
"Another amnesty for undocumented aliens is already in the air"
George W. Bush In Firm Agreement With Communist Party:
Communist Party USA - Proposed Resolution against Racism and for Immigrant Rights
A] Open unlimited immigration into the USA - Jorge W. Bush - Open Borders
B] Compulsory bi-lingual education for all adults and their families of whatever country or cultural background. Federal prohibition of " English Only" - English, Huh? Bush firmly rejected English-only, which has caused problems among Hispanics. I support English-plus, not English-only, said Bush.
English-only says to me that if Hispanic happens to be your heritage, youre not part of the process.
C] Extension of all existing labor and workplace protection laws, and the right to redress under them for all immigrant workers, documented or not. Bush measure to be introduced in Congress that grants Illegal Aliens the same rights in the workplace as U.S. citizens.
D] Support for the AFL-CIO policy on amnesty, and a call for a major AFL-CIO drive in all minority communities, and that consciously strategies to avoid any attempts to "whipsaw" one community against another. George W. Bush or Bill Clinton, take your pick.
In Mexico, Daschle, Gephardt give strongest support yet to more open borders, immigration reform
"President of the United States Wants To Grant Amnesty Up To 4 Million Illegal Aliens"
George W. Bush: No Amnesty for Immigrants - "There's going to be no amnesty"
"READ MY LIPS"
George W. Bush Doesn't Need No Stinking Polls
NOTE: How George W. Bush Uses Polls
Jorge W. Bush Was Just Kidding - Bush Administration Wants to Extend Immigration "Amnesty"
If he signs this bill as an old friend said to me, he is Finished and the conservatives will send him packing in 2004. Just like the republicans on the list that voted for it. Who I think need to be really freep but good.
Did he sign away your free speech? Your post makes no sense what so ever.
No they won't TLB. He will lose a few and gain a few. This is not a deal killer with most of the country. I also don't think the Bush gives a "rats behind" about being re-elected. He is not that driven and never has been and he truly does what he thinks is right OR business like. In some ways his only secret reason for running in the first place was to vindicate his father. He approaches government with an entirely different perspective of any President we have seen in our lifetimes. You have to remember. when it came to the Bush family it was Jeb that was groomed for the presidency and Jeb is a politician through and through. GW was a shock to everyone including his own family and he was a very reluctant candidate. However this war is something that he has taken very personally and he will see it to some kind of conclusion. I will make a future bet with you. If this bill is signed and the court upholds it, the first election it is applied to will have as many attack ads as ever right up to poll closing.
No, when he came out of nowhere and beat Ann Richards I started paying close attention to him and researching his place in the Bush "dynasty". I also had the advantage of watching him closely for 6 years a Governor. He is a shrewd business man and approaches government differently than a politician. His best skill is the ability to do cost benefit analysis before taking action. The best example was his quote about the war in which he said "I am not shooting a 3 million dollar missile into an empty tent". That is the way he conducts himself, he did it in Texas and I am not surprised he is doing it now.
I'll let you know when I'm behind. I have just lapped you and you think you are ahead. lol
He will probably sign the bill. It will NOT hurt him and the 1st amendment violations will be struck down. You are overwrought and will come to your senses over time.
(Done by executive order)
Wrong! Not done by executive order. The executive order merely reinstates the enforcement of the Beck decision, which simply states that a union worker has a right to be informed and object to his dues being used for certain political purposes. In reality this means nothing...so, a union worker objects and the union boss thugs say, your objection is duly noted, proceed with the big donations to the Dems.
It is a far cry from the union bosses actually having to get written permission from the members to use their dues for political purposes. This provision was either left out or voted down in the Senate as a "poison pill" to passing CFR.
Since you are so interested in having all the true facts, just thought you'd like to be made aware...
Point is why sign it?
On April 13, 1992, in what many consider to be nothing more than an act of political opportunism, President Bush issued Executive Order 12800, which requires all federal contractors to inform their employees of their "Beck rights." The order stems from a 1988 U.S. Supreme Court opinion, Communication Workers of America v. Beck, in which the Court declared that employees forced to pay union dues under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) do not have to contribute to a union's partisan political activities. The Communication Workers of America had been using as much as 79 percent of Harry Beck's dues for such activities, almost all in support of Democratic party candidates.
Because to veto it only postpones it. Do you think McCain or his doppelgangers will give up until the courts decide one way or the other? This is the holy grail of "reformers". Until the courts shut them down the monster will rise at every administration and by then the favorable parts of the bill will be long gone.
I was merely trying to point out the fallacy of your claim. The EO does NOT equal the stated goal for CFR by Bush, which is written consent by a union member, BEFORE, the fact. A noble goal - and one much more effective.
Would you happen to have the statistics as to how much money was returned to union members during the year when the original EO by Bush Sr was signed? I don't have them myself, but I would be willing to bet it is so puny as to be totally insignificant.
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.