Bush rules out 'blanket amnesty'

Status
Not open for further replies.

wingman

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,196
Location
texas
Bush rules out 'blanket amnesty'


By Joseph Curl
THE WASHINGTON TIMES



President Bush yesterday ruled out granting "blanket amnesty" to as many as 12 million immigrants illegally in the United States, but said he supports a policy that benefits American business owners and immigrant job seekers.
"We need to have an immigration policy that helps match any willing employer with any willing employee," Mr. Bush said in a news conference yesterday.
"It makes sense that that policy go forward. And we're in the process of working that through now so I can make a recommendation to the Congress," said Mr. Bush about the politically dicey issue — made more urgent by his planned attendance at the Summit of the Americas in Monterrey, Mexico, next month.
But the president reiterated a stance he has enunciated often: "This administration is firmly against blanket amnesty."
The president did not spell out his preferred policy. A handful of options are floating around Capitol Hill, including one co-sponsored by several Republicans who propose giving legal residency to illegal immigrants through work.
Senior White House officials have expressed support for such a temporary-worker program that would let some workers become legal immigrants, but so far the administration has not backed any single piece of legislation.
Yesterday, a White House official said Mr. Bush's comments represent no change from previous administration policy.
The president's comments come a week after Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge expressed support for giving legal status to immigrants. In Miami, Mr. Ridge said: "The bottom line is, as a country we have to come to grips with the presence of 8 to 12 million illegals, afford them some kind of legal status some way, but also as a country decide what our immigration policy is and then enforce it."
Before the September 11 attacks, the administration had begun talks with Mexican President Vicente Fox about ways to legalize more than 3 million undocumented Mexicans living in the United States. The dialogue ended after the attacks.
High-level representatives of each government reopened talks last month with a meeting in Washington, but relations between Mr. Bush and Mr. Fox have been chilly for some time.
While the two leaders met briefly in Bangkok at an international economic summit in October, lending an air of optimism to the new talks, relations soured again yesterday as Mexico accused the United States of violating international law over its treatment of 52 Mexican nationals on death row.
In a court filing, Mexico asked the World Court in The Hague to order the United States to retry the Mexicans, saying those arrested were not told of their right to consular help.
The last major legalization program in 1986, when more than 2 million illegal immigrants were granted blanket amnesty, was a failure. The move did not stem illegal immigration, but instead created an avenue for millions of new immigrants to legally enter the country to visit newly legal relatives. Many illegally overstayed their temporary visas.
With that lesson in mind, top Republican lawmakers are proposing legislation that would impose a $1,500 fine on illegal immigrants before they were granted legal residency in the United States. Those illegal entrants also would have to line up behind workers who entered the United States under a guest-worker program as they sought legal residency.
"If you do not deal with both pieces of it — those people who are here in an undocumented status, as well as those future want-to-be immigrants — all you do is create the next wave of immigrants who will come into the country illegally," Rep. Jim Kolbe of Arizona, one of three Republican authors of a comprehensive immigration-reform bill, said last week.
Another piece of legislation known as the DREAM Act would give legal and permanent status to tens of thousands of children of undocumented immigrants. The bill, whose name is an acronym for Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, was sponsored by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican. It recently passed in the Senate Judiciary Committee and is awaiting a full vote by the Senate.
In September, Democratic and Republican lawmakers jointly proposed legislation that would allow 500,000 undocumented farm workers to become legal U.S. residents. The bill is awaiting a vote in the Judiciary Committee.
 
If the Pres has said he doesn't like it, and it's still in committee, it probably won't make it out of committee, thus saving him from having to take any position at all.

Now, when are they gong to announce the blanket deportation?
 
"We need to have an immigration policy that helps match any willing employer with any willing employee," Mr. Bush said in a news conference yesterday.

----------------------------------

And this quote means? I understand it as a statement of a globalist who believes that international free market economics trumps borders, sovereignty, and citizenship.

If we had a society that eliminated the welfare system you might be able to make an argument for this. on libertarian grounds There are plenty of American employers, alas, who are all too willing to hire any warm body at the lowest possible wage, regardless of the impact on their own community or their nation. I think Bush might be able to find a few billion willing employees out there too. He can subsidize their passage here and make sure their dependents have plenty of public assistance.

Good economics doesn't always make for a great nation.
 
Ridge's comments was a trial balloon. The ruling class has no feel at all for the abject hatred the taxpaying class has for the whole concept of amnesty for illegals. Furthermore, the ruling class does not believe there is a problem with illegal immigration while the taxpaying class is about to have a stroke over the defacto legalization of lawbreaking immigrants.

Ridge's comments received general media play. Karl Rove did his magic with polling. Results came back in the usual 3-5 days and Rove informed Bush it is a no-go.

Bush has not backed off his support of open-borders. He will just have to go to ground to get anything done.

Democrats politically are in really bad shape for 2004. Nothing they hype is growing legs. I will be happy to offer Clinton and Dean some issues which they can use to regain the senate if they do it right.
1>attack Bush's complicity in encouraging the flood of illegal aliens. Create some statistics as to how many are here, how many crimes they committ, how much they cost, how many hospitals have tanked due to their load, and how much welfare they siphon off. Now I know Democrats are just as responsible for the current mess as is the republicans, but we're talkin' politics and lying is perfectly acceptable.

2>De-industrialization of the US. Bleat about how many manufacturing and now IT jobs are going offshore. Bleat about how an evil government working in conjunction with fat corporate thieves has screwed the hardworking American worker. Won't work by sucking up to union members. Gotta become the friend of the working stiff. Yea, I know Democrats are just as responsible for the "free trade" policy as are republicans, but we are talkin' politics here. Lying is an acceptable tactic.

There is a social explosion building in this country over the issues of illegal migration supported by the government in spite of what the law says, and over the destruction of the middleclass.

Bush has no counter argument for these two issues.

Hey Democrats!!!!! Grow a clue. You are barking up the wrong tree if you think you can take Bush on over the economy or over Iraq. Its a loser.
 
The ruling class has no feel at all for the abject hatred the taxpaying class has for the whole concept of amnesty for illegals

Yup, I have often wondered how in poll after poll the "great unwashed" are resoundingly in favor of enforcement of immigration laws, yet the Democrats and Republicans continue to totally go the other way.

My only guess is its not a "make or break" issue with most, like say taxes, abortion, or gun rights can be. Therefore, Joe (D) or Joe (R) can just ingore the majority as long as they are on their side on other issues.

What a buncha morons. Hey career politicians: do something about it now before it becomes a "make or break" issue.:banghead:
 
I think the American public is like the proverbial deer in the headlights. They can see Big Trouble coming but have been programmed to be good, hardworking, law-abiding citizens. Add to that the fact that the politicians and most of the media have done their best to suppress or defang the issue and you have a populace that is being taught to doubt and disavow its best instincts. The result, for now, is paralysis. Bush could be pushing his luck, though, because there is no doubt the grass-roots is emphatically against legalizing illegal aliens. At some point the resentment of the economic impact the influx of aliens is having, both in terms of job and public assistance costs, is going to boil over. What will it take? Hard to say. I think the "integration" of our Social Security with Mexico, permitting Mexican nationals to grab SS pensions for work done here while illegal, could be the igniter.

Yes, a savvy Democrat could take this issue and run with it, but that would take an old-style Democrat with a gut-love for "the little guy." Those Dems have been replaced by a new class of Demoplutocrats (like Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, et al.). I think this thrust is more likely to emerge from a new party altogether.
 
I think it all boils down to both parties fighting for the Mexican American vote. I would guess that most Mexicans here who have became citizens would favor letting any of thier former countrymen and women come and go as they pleased. The Republicans will never get the majority of the black vote so they have found another minority to play up to. Both parties seem to be trying to outdo each other in not offending Mexican Americans. Its all about staying in power in the end, not about what is best for the country. Just my opinion.
 
I would guess that most Mexicans here who have became citizens would favor letting any of thier former countrymen and women come and go as they pleased.

You'd be surprised.

I know I was.

From what I've read, a sizeable amount (40%+) of mexican-Americans opposed davis' idea to give illegals licenses.

It may not be as bad as we think....
 
It may not be as bad as we think.

Or it may be worse.

Bush is buying a short-term economic and electoral high with what could become a long-term hangover. The Southwest still has the potential to become another Intifada or a Bosnia.


© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

A Mexican-American separatist website, La Voz de Aztlan, is claiming the U.S. capture of
Saddam Hussein is a hoax.

The pro-Arab and viciously anti-Israeli organization also sees a spontaneous uprising of popular
support for Hussein throughout Iraq – a phenomenon unnoticed by news organizations throughout
the world, including those in Arab countries.

According to the site, "extreme doubts have arisen throughout Islam that the released pictures by
U.S. occupation forces of the 'captured Saddam' are of the Iraqi leader. Thousands of Iraqis, who
knew Saddam, are claiming that it is one of Saddam's many known 'doubles.'"

Why would an American-based website produced by Mexican-Americans be so committed to
the legacy of Saddam Hussein?

The Aztlan movement, which calls for the creation of a separate, Spanish-speaking state in North
America out of much of the Southwest, gets its inspiration from Yasser Arafat's Palestinian
statehood movement.

La Voz de Aztlan, or the Voice of Aztlan, called the capture of Hussein the "mother of all hoaxes."

Its website identifies Mexicans in the U.S. as "America's Palestinians." Many Mexicans see
themselves as part of a transnational ethnic group known as "La Raza" – the race. A May editorial
on the website, with a dateline of "Los Angeles, Alta California," declares that "both La Raza and
the Palestinians have been displaced by invaders that have utilized military means to conquer and
occupy our territories."

Hussein, the group's captive hero, meanwhile, paid some $35 million in aid to the families of
Palestinian suicide bombers.

According to a survey conducted in June 2002, a healthy majority of Mexicans claim that their
country rightfully owns much of the southwestern United States, while most Americans believe
Washington should adopt stricter immigration standards and deploy U.S. troops along the border.
The Zogby International poll found a majority of Mexicans say the U.S. Southwest "rightfully
belongs to Mexico," and that Mexican citizens should be able to come into those areas freely,
without U.S. permission. The poll found that 58 percent of Mexicans agree with the statement,
"The territory of the United States' Southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico." Zogby said 28
percent disagreed, while another 14 percent said they weren't sure.

Activists who quite literally see themselves as "America's Palestinians" are gearing up a movement
to carve out of the southwestern United States – a region including all of Bush's home state of
Texas – a sovereign Hispanic state called the Republica del Norte.

"There are great similarities between the political and economic condition of the Palestinians in
occupied Palestine and that of La Raza in the southwest United States," explains an editorial in La
Voz de Aztlan in Los Angeles, the city seen as the future capital of the new Hispanic state – much
like Jerusalem is seen by Palestinian Arabs as their capital.

The editorial goes on to draw analogies between the Arab uprising in Israel and gang violence in
Los Angeles. It's the same thing, the activists claim. This is not crime and punishment, according to
La Raza activists, this is the birth of an independence movement by young Hispanics.

"The similarities are many," says the editorial. "The takeover of our respective lands by foreign
elements occurred 100 years apart. For La Raza, it happened in 1848 when Mexico lost the
southwest at the end of the Mexican-American War and the signing of the Treaty of
Guadalupe-Hidalgo. For the Palestinians, it occurred in 1948 when the Zionist Jewish People's
Council gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum and signed the 'Declaration of the Establishment of the
State of Israel' on the day in which the British Mandate over Palestine expired."
 
draw analogies between the Arab uprising in Israel and gang violence in Los Angeles

The gangs in LA are criminals, pure and simple. And their violence is primarily directed at each other.

And of course most Mexicans are going to believe that the US stole a big chunk of land from them in 1848. You think their schools are going to teach that "We had a big fight with the Gringos over a border dispute, they kicked our butts, and we have to live with the consequences?"
 
The issue isn't gangs, it's racist, nationalist organizations, including some funded by the Ford Foundation and other "globalist" entities.

What they teach in Mexico is one thing, what they are teaching here in the U.S., to people residing here illegally, is quite another. Maybe we need to worry about the "madrassas" within our own borders.

Right now illegal aliens are wreaking havoc fiscally on California. Imagine what happens if and when benefits are reduced, if not eliminated. The potential for civil unrest is considerable. Opening the borders to more "willing workers" will only make this problem worse.
 
Longeyes,

God knows I don't want to sound like a paranoid racist, but, carry your train of thought further. And interpose it on what is happening in this country politically today.
What would happen if you had a massive civil unrest in the Southwestern states? Personally, I think it could be a catalyst for civil rights suspensions like Wesley Clark was talking about.

Or am I just getting old and cranky here?
 
Ruling out blanket amnesty for Illegals should be a no brainer that even a Politician could understand. What has happened to California is a direct result of defacto legalization of mainly Hispanics, through a policy of non-enorcement, after all they (the Hispanics) do menial labor that Americans don't want to do at wages that Americans will not work for. Perhaps if there were not a glut of Ilegal Hispanics willing to work for slave wages, the Employers would have to pay a living wage that Americans would work for. (Just a thought)

This open door policy on California's part has led to the mass migration of an unskilled, undereducated, disease ridden,( Smallpox, T.B.).ethnic minority whose burden on the Social Services of the State is the major cause of the fiscal disaster it finds itself in. To contemplate making Criminals legal boggles the mind. Can see it now, "49 other states in same financial state as Cal." (Headline printed in Spanish of course).

Instead of encouraging this Criminal activity, the u.S. should declare war on illegal Immigrants, with the same passion as the war on terrorism,IMO, failure to win either war will be disastrous
 
"Instead of encouraging this Criminal activity, the u.S. should declare war on
illegal Immigrants, with the same passion as the war on terrorism,IMO, failure to
win either war will be disastrous"

The "U.S.," by which I assume you mean the Government, is not going to wage war on illegal immigrants. Rather it is far more likely to side with them against those who oppose illegal immigration. We only need to ask ourselves who really owns the Government and that question is answered. The people, meaning American citizens, are very much opposed to illegal immigration but they are generally ignored while the Powers That Be spin the situation to their advantage. I think we are headed toward another Bosnia in the United States and if American citizens ever get frustrated enough to try and stop what's going on they will find themselves at the wrong end of a gun barrel, perhaps even NATO's or the U.N.'s.
 
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
 
The Dangers of Our United States Immigration Policies"




Richard D. Lamm, former governor of Colorado, writes this article on immigration, in which he lists five grave concerns about the United States continuing it present immigration trend. Lamm is director of the Center for Public Policy and Contemporary Issues at the University of Denver. The article appeared on the website of the Rocky Mountain News.

***
On Immigration

Should illegal aliens have driver's licenses, amnesty, welfare, and the right to move their families to the U.S.? Illegal aliens are, as is often pointed out, ''good, hard-working people who just want the American dream.'' But is that the end of the argument?

The trouble with that level of analysis is that there are billions of ''good, hard-working people'' and their dependents in the world who would love to come here, and obviously we can't take them all. We are also a nation of laws, with our own unemployed and underemployed, and our nation needs to come to some enforceable consensus on what our policy should be on people entering the country illegally.

Polls show that more than 70 percent of Americans object to illegal immigration, and we run a serious risk of a backlash against all immigrants if we don't reach some consensus on this issue. Polls also show that there is no issue in America where there is a bigger gap between public opinion and opinions of the media and other ''elites.''

Reasoned dialogue is rare and issues of immense importance to America's future are not being discussed or even debated.

Public policy requires us to be wise enough to appreciate cumulative effects. We already have approximately 10 percent of all Mexico living in the U.S. either legally or illegally. We owe it to the future to have a candid debate on the demographic impact of a mass migration of this magnitude. Consider:

1. We are a nation built on law. It almost sounds old-fashioned in contemporary America to ask that people obey the law. But when we start deciding which laws to obey and which to ignore, we start down a dangerous path. There are millions of potential immigrants patiently waiting in their home countries to immigrate here, playing by our rules. Illegal immigrants ''jump the line.''

2. As every house needs a door, every country needs a border. By turning a blind eye toward illegal immigration, we are encouraging countless numbers of these people to attempt to sneak into America. I spent a night with the Border Patrol in California, and was amazed to find people from India, Bangladesh, Iran, Egypt, Africa and China among the people detained.

3. Illegal immigration hurts America's poor. Illegal immigrants compete for the jobs our own poor need to start to move up the economic ladder. A study by The Center for Immigration Studies finds: ''Mexican immigration is overwhelmingly unskilled, and it is hard to find an economic argument for unskilled immigration, because it tends to reduce wages for (U.S.) workers.'' The study goes on: ''Because the American economy offers very limited opportunities for workers with little education, continued unskilled immigration can't help but to significantly increase the size of the poor and uninsured populations, as well as the number of people on welfare.''

4. We are told that illegal immigration is ''cheap labor,'' but it is not ''cheap labor,'' it is subsidized labor. The National Academy of Sciences has found that there is a significant fiscal drain on U.S. taxpayers for each adult immigrant without a high school education. Illegal immigration is something that benefits a few employers, but the rest of us subsidize that labor through the school system, the health-care system, the courts and in other ways that this form of labor imposes. With school spending of more than $7,000 per student per year, even a small family costs far more than a low-wage family pays in taxes.

5. America is increasingly becoming, day by day, a bilingual country, yet there is not a bilingual country in the world that lives in peace with itself. No nation should blindly allow itself to become a bilingual-bicultural country. If it does, it invites generations of conflict, tension and antagonism. America has historically demanded that its immigrants be self-supporting and English-speaking to join our polity. We vary from that rule that made us '''one nation, indivisible''' at great risk to America's future. Today, when over 40 percent of today's massive wave of immigrants is from Spanish-speaking nations, people can move to America and keep their language, their culture and their old loyalties. If the melting pot doesn't melt, immigrants become ''foreigners'' living in America rather than assimilated Americans.

6. Our social fabric risks becoming undone. It is important to America's future that we look at how Mexican immigrants are doing. Too many of our Hispanic immigrants live in ethnic ghettos. Too many are unskilled laborers, too many are uneducated, too many live in poverty, too many are exploited, too many haven't finished ninth grade, too many drop out of school. The Center for Immigration Studies issued a report last year, which found: ''Almost two-thirds of adult Mexican immigrants have not completed high school, compared to fewer than one in 10 natives not completing high school. Mexican immigrants now account for 22 percent of all high school dropouts in the labor force.''

But what is most disturbing is that second and third generations don't do much better. Again, the study from The Center for Immigration Studies: ''The lower educational attainment of Mexican immigrants appears to persist across the generations.'' A recent report from the center shows that two-thirds of Mexican immigrant workers lack even a high school education; as a consequence, two-thirds of Mexican immigrant families live in or near poverty. The question has to be asked: By tolerating illegal immigration are we laying the foundations for a new Hispanic underclass? A Hispanic Quebec?
 
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Micro, if we just left our borders open for anyone to waltz in as they please, we'd turn into a country of at least a billion people, and I don't think I need to start explaining what would happen to our standard of living.

We would turn into a nation of "wretched refuse."
 
Lamm sheds valuable light on the issue. The problem, as many of us here have said in one way or another, comes back to elitism. The American elite has a different plan for us, and they don't give a fig whether most of don't cotton to the current policies. In this the illegal alien issue is no different from a number of others where the interests of the few seem to outweigh both the interests of the many and the interests of the Individual. The Democratic Party, if it still had its wits about it, would find fertile ground to plough here politically, but it too lost its popular anchors a while ago.
 
Micro, if we just left our borders open for anyone to waltz in as they please, we'd turn into a country of at least a billion people, and I don't think I need to start explaining what would happen to our standard of living.

Newsflash: Israel's borders are open to any Jew (or relative of one) that wishes to enter. In 1990-1995, ONE MILLION Russian-Jews entered the country. The population increased 20%. Yet the standard of living went up, not down.

In the 1950's, Israel accepted a Morrocan immigration which was almost equal to the amount people already in the country. Same deal.
 
Well there you have it! Enforcing borders is how you make a country poorer.

Imagine the money we could save by disbanding the BP, INS, etc and put all that money into increased pay for our elected representatives.

Lamm's comments have been seen elsewhere. He is dead right about the chasm in perception of the problem between the taxpaying class and ruling class. I can think of no issue where the paths diverge in such a radical way. If it ain't fixed there will be a social explosion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top