[MJY1288]

"When he does, and he did, who else is responsible?

Please show me a DIRECT quote where he was pushing for any type of blanket amnesty?

why did the trial balloons stop after the defeat of Bush's attempted extension of Section 245(i)?

245i was an extension of an existing regulation and was not introduced by the President. Now as much as you would like to crucify him for something that never happened, I find it useless to debate about something that never happened. "If the Queen had balls she would be King"

"If you say Bush is responsible, then I'll retract my statement at #1190, where I said, "Apparently, not even the President's own actions can sway your faith."

I find it uneccessary to hold Bush responsible for something he didn't create, and since you have said 245i was defeated, I don't see why this is even an issue. We could debate till the cows come home over things that could of happened. I don't understand why you continue beating a dead horse, but I'm a pretty patient person and usually keep my cool, but debating over water under the bridge is like spinning wheels in reverse while more important issues are at hand

[Sabertooth]

Please show me a DIRECT quote where he was pushing for any type of blanket amnesty?

This has been tried so many times... not all Amnesties are blanket Amnesties, just as not all pardons are unconditional pardons.

For the record, I have never suggested that President Bush supports a blanket Amnesty. But not supporting blanket Amnesty is meaningless. If there are 10 million Illegals in the country, then an Amnesty for 999,999 is not a blanket Amnesty. Big deal.

"Not a blanket Amnesty, therefore not an Amnesty" is like saying that President Clinton didn't have sex with Monica. It's pure hairsplitting.

245i was an extension of an existing regulation and was not introduced by the President. Now as much as you would like to crucify him for something that never happened, I find it useless to debate about something that never happened.

To say that nothing happened here is inaccurate.

245(i) wasn't an extension of existing legislation, it was an attempt to revive an expired Clinton program. It wasn't existing, it was dead.

The attempt to revive the Section 245(i) Amnesty program was introduced at President Bush's behest, at the last minute, as a rider on the Homeland Defense bill. The White House lobbied hard for it, and won in the House, only to see the provison deleted from the Senate version. When he signed the bill, the President said he wished that the Section 245(i) extension was still in it.

That actually is what happened... a far cry from "nothing happened."

I find it uneccessary to hold Bush responsible for something he didn't create, and since you have said 245i was defeated, I don't see why this is even an issue. We could debate till the cows come home over things that could of happened.

Fallacy of false distinction...

If Joe Blow carves a turkey with a knife, who is responsible for the drumstick on your plate? Joe? But he didn't create the knife, and he didn't create the turkey.

Kinda silly, huh?

No one's holding President Bush responsible for creating Section 245(i), Clinton and the Democrats did that.

However, by his actions, President Bush is responsible for attempting to revive the expired Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Naturalization Code.

I don't understand your resistance to this.

I don't understand why you continue beating a dead horse, but I'm a pretty patient person and usually keep my cool, but debating over water under the bridge is like spinning wheels in reverse while more important issues are at hand.

The horse isn't dead, Daschle and the Democrats are trying to revive Section 245(i) even now. There's already been one other attempt to revive it since Bush's defeat, but it was defeated in a House Committee in May.

If a stand-alone Section 245(i) extension passed Congress today, do you really think President Bush would veto it? He hasn't vetoed anything else.

I guess I understand why you don't think Illegals are an important problem, living in Maryland. But it's a big problem here in California, as you can see from the links I posted at #1,115.

And it's not just a California problem, because we're just to big to ignore. I see from your posts on this thread that winning elections is important to you. Have you wondered why California was such a GOP stronghold through 1988, and now it's such a Democrat lock that Gore didn't even campaign here in 2000, and still won by a million votes?

One huge answer is the rampant, unabated invasion of Illegals. Orange County used to be so strongly Republican that it had more than enough votes to overwhelm Democrat bastions in Los Angeles and the Bay Area. My brother still lives there. But they've been inundated by Illegals and many of the Republicans have moved out.

Now you can no longer count on the jewel in the Electoral College crown... is that important to you? Do you want to see that repeated elsewhere, over the long haul? How about Texas?

Can the GOP afford to spot the Democrats California and New York, and leave Florida and Texas as toss-up states?

There are other reasons why combatting Illegals is important, like respect for the rule of law, their high crime, drain on our resources, depression of wages, and erosion of our communities, among others... but I wanted to offer you something that would appeal to you.