Replies

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.

Well, I would like to continue this debate on "IF's" and "Coulda woulda shoulda's" but I see it as a waste of time. I agree with you on the immigration issue, I sent many emails to everyone I could, I made many phone calls to my represenatives in the house and senate, and solicited the members of the Local Business Association I am a board member of to do the same, and thankfully it didn't get out of the House committee or I would of had to petition the white house also.

but debating this 245i corpse with you is a waste of our time. I am your side my friend, I just to choose to vent my concerns in a more constructive way. If and when this issue is ever brought up again, I will repeat my efforts in the past. It's the only way I know to make a difference.

I also like to step back from my own personal expectations and consider the realistic obstacles the president faces when he is trying to change the coarse of this nation and consider myself lucky if any of my hopes for change becomes reality. I also know that if we don't defeat the democrats nobody else will, As much as some of the dreamers here want to believe their "True Conservative" electable candidate will somehow appear out of thin air and answer their dreams, It will never happen. I am certain the only threat conservatives face in the next few years is to self destruct and allow the RATS to regain control of the executive branch.

No Conservative like Alan Keyes or Pat Bucannan have a chance of being elected in these times when the liberals control the noise coming out of the idiot box we call a TV. So we have to vote for electable candidates that might not fullfil all of our wishes, but has the political skills to keep the democrats at bay. I like the direction George W. Bush is taking us and I am extremely happy with his strong stand against the U.N.

The accountability he has insisted on in his legislative proposals helps me deal with some of the excessive government spending. But I refuse to condemn this man and see a RAT elected in 2004, and I pray we can gain control of the Senate and keep the House so we can see what he can do with support from both houses in his second term.

I also believe GWB has our best interest in mind, and much like the liberals in the press has underestimated him, so have many here. I've seen first hand the damage the liberals have done to this country and I've seen how they operate. They are the enemy, not any policy or stinking Bill GWB signs. I don't care what GWB has to do to get re-elected, I have faith he will change the coarse of this country for the better, we just have to give him the chance.

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?

Agreed, and the problem will only get worse IMHO.

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

It's probably too late. In ten years, Texans and Florida will be as strongly democratic as California. Unless we deport illegals overnight, there's not much we can do to change that fate. Sure President Bush might win reelection in 2004, but will Conservatives seriously have a chance in the future? Reality sucks.