REPUBLICAN lawmaker pushing for illegal amnesty, labels opponents "White Supremacists

Status
Not open for further replies.

Drjones

member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
2,803
Note that this guy claims to be a "Republican." :rolleyes:

Can't the Republican party kick him out? He is a radical leftist.
:fire::fire::fire:


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115803,00.html


Utah Lawmaker Pushes for Illegal Alien Amnesty

Thursday, April 01, 2004
By Matt Hayes

On March 24, the House Judiciary Committee held an oversight hearing called “How Would Millions of Guest Workers Impact Working Americans and Americans Seeking Employment?â€


The hearing took place in connection with various “guest worker†bills pending before Congress. Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, a committee member, has spent extraordinary resources trying to convince voters that the bill he co-sponsors is not an amnesty, though it would not prosecute the millions of illegal aliens (search) who have committed a crime by entering or remaining in the U.S. without a current visa. Instead, it would give them a work permit.

Cannon, a lawmaker, has openly expressed his contempt for the distinction between legal and illegal immigration. “We love immigrants in Utah. We don’t make the distinction very often between legal and illegal,†he said on June 6, 2002, as he received an Excellence in Leadership award from MALDEF, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (search). Cannon’s remarks are entirely consistent with the beliefs of MALDEF’s co-founder, Mario Obledo, who said in June 1998 “California is going to be a Hispanic state and anyone who doesn't like it should leave. They should go back to Europe.â€

"Reconquista" is a term employed by groups like MALDEF who want to see California and its neighboring states annexed, at least culturally, with people free to move there from Mexico. If there had ever been doubts that Cannon was doing the bidding of the "reconquistadors," they were erased at that hearing. Cannon’s bill, the Agricultural Jobs, Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act of 2003 (AgJOBS,†H.R. 3142 (search), would make all foreign nationals who were illegally in the United States between February 2002 and January 2003 (which Cannon estimates is 11 million people), and who had also worked for 100 days in agriculture, immune from prosecution for the crime of entering the U.S. without a current visa, and then give them work permits.

The bill also mandates payment of a penalty, and Cannon cites this as his reason to not label it an amnesty. But under the AgJOBS bill, the normal immigration law that prohibits gaining legal immigration status due to unlawful presence would be waived. Though this doesn’t fit Cannon’s definition of “amnesty,†it worked for Webster.

Thanks to the House of Representatives’ excellent Judiciary Committee Web site, Utah’s voters can see the depths to which Chris Cannon is willing to go in an effort to smear advocates of immigration reduction as white supremacists. Rep. Cannon employed a line of questioning developed by members of the House Un-American Activities Committee in the 1950’s. In referring to an umbrella organization of groups that advocate against massive, uncontrolled immigration, Cannon asked one witness, “Did you go to lunch with other folks that were associated with that umbrella organization?â€

But according to Allison Solin of ProjectUSA, the Washington, DC-based social advocacy organization that has five billboards up in Utah’s 3rd Congressional district advertising Rep. Cannon’s support for an illegal alien amnesty, Rep. Cannon wants to have it both ways.

“Congressman Cannon objects to our participation in the political debate in Utah and calls us an ‘outside special interest,’†says Ms. Solin. “Yet we’re only Americans exercising our democratic rights. On the other hand, Congressman Cannon seems to have no problem with ‘outsiders’ as long its cheap foreign labor driving down American wages and making life even more difficult for struggling American families.â€

Indeed, most of the hundreds of organizations listed on his website as endorsing his AgJOBS amnesty represent industries that stand to profit financially from cheaper labor, and some of the groups listed actually work in concert with the government of Mexico to influence U.S. immigration policy.

“In our view,†says Ms. Solin, “those are the real ‘outside special interests.'â€

The attempt, however, to cast immigration reductionists as white supremacists did provide one humorous, if embarrassing, moment in last Wednesday’s House hearing. Rep. Cannon was deep into a rambling monologue in which he was attempting to draw links between the alleged white supremacists plotting a take-over of the Sierra Club and the alleged white supremacists driving the immigration reduction movement. At one point, Rep. Cannon, following the Southern Poverty Law Center line, asserted that five current candidates for the Sierra Club’s Board of Directors are all members of this white supremacist conspiracy. Unbeknownst to him, however, one of those Sierra Club candidates was sitting right in front of him at the witness table — Frank Morris, a black man who formerly headed the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation.

Many observers have said that when it comes to illegal immigration, there is very little difference between the positions of the two major parties. But voters have a choice when it comes to Chris Cannon. Cannon’s positions and rhetoric do not so much resemble those of either major political party as those of the radical Left. Again and again, he speaks of a Marxist, Open Borders America in which the notion of “illegal immigrant†no longer exists. Then he legislates for it.

Rep. Cannon has found his constituency. It just doesn’t consist of American citizens.
 
Because only a freaking idiot wouldn't see that a THIRD PARTY VOTE (meaning lib) would be WORSE. Open borders = free immigration.. which is what we are against! At least I am.

The right thing to do is to put the damn military on the border and build a LARGE berlin style wall around the US :)

But, again, third party is worse than Repub on immigation.
 
Spinelessrepublicans at the federal and state level had better drain that particular swamp or that joker will hung around their necks like 5 day old road kill.

He obviously thinks his is in a position to get shrill in his rhetoric.
 
Seems we are in a position about the border like the poor Aussies are on gun confiscation. ALL parties are for it, so you don't have a chance to elect someone with a different view.

GO INTO YOUR ROOM AND BEHAVE, PEASANT! :banghead:
 
Sadly Cannon is my congressman.

Luckily we have two extreamly conservative Republicans challenging him. The one who gets the most delegates votes will go head to head with him in the primary, and depending on their campaign they may actually have a chance.

Cannon's family currently runs the state GOP, however there is a power struggle going on right now. Utah, where even our Democrats are Republicans. :) We actually are a two party state, just that both of our parties are registered Republican. (except for SLC proper of course).
 
Cannon's family currently runs the state GOP, however there is a power struggle going on right now. Utah, where even our Democrats are Republicans. We actually are a two party state, just that both of our parties are registered Republican

How so?
 
Because only a -------- wouldn't see that a THIRD PARTY VOTE (meaning lib) would be WORSE. Open borders = free immigration.. which is what we are against!

Open borders is only one side of the equation, with the other being the ending of all government handouts, which you've convieniently forgotten.

See, there's four choices here:
1. Open borders/no handouts, no "dual citizenship" (Libertarian)
2. "Closed" borders which leak (current situation)
3. "Closed" borders, amnesty for illegals, "Open" borders for certain priviledged migrants (some Dem/some Repub/in some states)
4. "Closed" borders, illegals kneecapped or shot on sight (ain't gonna happen)

Since #4 is not an option, and you're opposed to #1, that really leaves a choice of amnesty or status quo, and both lead to Reconquista...only the speed is slowed down. Which are you in favor of again? :confused:
 
Joe Cannon is his brother and state party chair, if I recall correctly.

I would take Throckmorton or Hawkins over Cannon any day. As far as I can tell, and you would know better than me as you know a lot more about the insides of politics here, but it seems like we have a battle going on right now. You've got Republicans like Leavitt who in most states would be a Democrat, and that side of the party, and then you have the hard right/conservative Republicans.

It just seems to me that we have a lot of statist republicans here who would be a lot more comfy being Democrats if they lived in a state that would elect them as such. Remember the convention where Hatch and Bennett got booed? I'm just thinking of that kind of thing.
 
Has to be more to this.

How is his question regarding the biases of one group calling anyone a "white supremacist"???

A lot of the opposition to immigration reform/abolition is based on racism, but that does not mean everyone is. What's the full story with the Congresscritter? Did he say something previously???:confused:
 
"See, there's four choices here:
1. Open borders/no handouts, no "dual citizenship" (Libertarian)
2. "Closed" borders which leak (current situation)
3. "Closed" borders, amnesty for illegals, "Open" borders for certain priviledged migrants (some Dem/some Repub/in some states)
4. "Closed" borders, illegals kneecapped or shot on sight (ain't gonna happen)"

...........................

You forgot option #5. Liberating Mexico.

Yes, opposition to immigration reform is "racist." Of course, there's no racism in Mexico, is there? It's not as if Indians aren't looked down upon by the "Spanish/Europeans" in that enlightened nation. Please.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top