Bush has sold out
WE MUST RECALL and IMPEACH the Traitors.
By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
President Bush yesterday told Hispanics to step into the middle of the immigration debate and make sure senators who have been bombarded with calls from opponents also hear from those who support the bill.
Well, Mr. President, WE are the US Citizens who pay for the Salary of the Senators and have an ABSOLUTE right to talk with them. NOT those who are here ILLEGALLY and are NOT CITIZENS of This Country. They have NO LEGAL right to make ANY Political decisions in America Mr. President ! Can you Tell me, Mr. President, why in Gods name are we making ANY deals at all with those who have knowingly broke countless US LAWS. Why would US Citizens be jailed for doing the SAME crimes ( Like Tax evasion, Document fraud, ID Theft, Tresspassing, Welfare Fraud, Money Laundering, Trasfer of US UNTAXED Dollars OUT of the Country to a Foreign Country.GRG
"There's a lot of emotion on this issue, and it makes sense to have people from around the country come and sit down with members of Congress to talk rationally about the issue," he told those attending the Hispanic Prayer Breakfast in Washington yesterday.
By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
President Bush yesterday told Hispanics to step into the middle of the immigration debate and make sure senators who have been bombarded with calls from opponents also hear from those who support the bill.
Well, Mr. President, WE are the US Citizens who pay for the Salary of the Senators and have an ABSOLUTE right to talk with them. NOT those who are here ILLEGALLY and are NOT CITIZENS of This Country. They have NO LEGAL right to make ANY Political decisions in America Mr. President ! Can you Tell me, Mr. President, why in Gods name are we making ANY deals at all with those who have knowingly broke countless US LAWS. Why would US Citizens be jailed for doing the SAME crimes ( Like Tax evasion, Document fraud, ID Theft, Tresspassing, Welfare Fraud, Money Laundering, Trasfer of US UNTAXED Dollars OUT of the Country to a Foreign Country.GRG
"There's a lot of emotion on this issue, and it makes sense to have people from around the country come and sit down with members of Congress to talk rationally about the issue," he told those attending the Hispanic Prayer Breakfast in Washington yesterday.
0
-
Just what, exactly, keeps that traitor from being impeached..? 0 -
Bush needs to go back to Crawford,........he may be a Republican, but he is certainly not a "conservative"!
In all fairness, if I were he, I would be ready to get out![;)]0 -
I hate to be the one to tell you this but Bush sold out a long time ago....
Thanks to him, the Dems are a lock for control of the White House and Congress in '08......and we're going to be among those who pay the price for it0 -
The guy's totally lost it.
When I was voting for him in 00, and again in 04, I never imagined we would have come to this. There's a reason behind it for sure and he's certainly not concerned that America would get screwed over in the process.
I give him a -10% approval rating now. The only positive thing he's done is let the AWB sunset and that required him to do nothing at all.0 -
...and that required him to do nothing at all
That is when the man is at his best!0 -
I voted for the guy twice, too.
You're right - somewhere along the way he's lost it.
The phone call picture was the first clue!
[:D]0 -
Ponder on this........
Where would we be if Gore or Kerry were sitting in the White House?
Yup, George is seriously mishandling the immigration issue.0 -
quote:Originally posted by A J Christ
Ponder on this........
Where would we be if Gore or Kerry were sitting in the White House?
At least I'd be b**ching about a stupid democrat President, instead of a stupid Republican President..........0 -
quote:WE MUST RECALL and IMPEACH the Traitors.You're just now saying this should happen?
Oh well... better late than never.0 -
Yep,it's a damned shame we didn't have anyone better to vote for in the last 2 elections. Bush showed his hand early in his 1st term when he let Teddy the K write the immigration bill. Many of us saw that as a bad sign of things to come. We had thought we were electing a conservative to fight liberalism. Not join forces w/it.
It was explained to us that he was trying to build bridges and unite the country. HA! Pretty damned optimistic and stupid thinking if it was. Today the left STILL blames any education problems on Bush, despite the fact that Kennedy wrote the bill.
And he has never made secret of the fact that he is pro illegal immigrant.0 -
A J Christ
We sure wouldn't be spending half the tax money we're spending now.I think even Gore would of payed closer attention to the Top brass , the CIA,and the FBI.Dubya's so far out on the left, on the illegals its not funny. Who in their right mind would agree with Ted Kennedy?0 -
this truley is a nightmare, a republican is doing crazy demo liberal stuff, and just think what will happen in 08, when a demo is almost garaunteed to be elected because of douche bag bush, hes doing an absolutley horrible job, what possible possitive outcome could be derived from giving millions of lawbreakers who are bringing the downfall of our country amnesty. this is completely irrational and insensible 0 -
All of you are assuming the bill will pass.
I don't think it will. Too many Senators will have to bet their jobs on it, and a lot of them remember what happened with the immigration bill that was passed in 1986. It didn't work, and neither will this one. History is on our side.
The only thing that will solve the immigration problem is to take away the candy. No illegal immigrant should be elgible for any type of health care, financial aid, ID card -- nothing. Any employer that hires an illegal to work in their business should face a $5,000.00 fine per day that they're employed.
They'll go back home in droves.
Here's what the NY Times said about the comparisons between the bills:
Failed Amnesty Legislation of 1986 Haunts the Current Immigration Bills in Congress
By RACHEL L. SWARNS
Published: May 23, 2006
WASHINGTON, May 22 - Day in and day out, as the immigration debate boils, the halls of Congress are haunted by the specter of Senate Bill 1200, the failed amnesty legislation of 1986.
Proposals for Immigration Reform (May 16, 2006) President Ronald Reagan signed that bill into law with great fanfare amid promises that it would grant legal status to illegal immigrants, crack down on employers who hired illegal workers and secure the border once and for all. Instead, fraudulent applications tainted the process, many employers continued their illicit hiring practices, and illegal immigration surged.
Today, senators who hope to put the nation's illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship say they have learned from the past. But some members of Congress and former immigration officials fear history will repeat itself.
Even some who favor legalization warn that the current bill, which requires illegal immigrants to submit affidavits, rent receipts and other documents as proof of eligibility, may fuel a wave of fraudulent documents and applications.
Demetrios G. Papademetriou, who studied the 1986 amnesty at the Labor Department in the first Bush administration, said he was encouraged when he heard that the Senate was close to granting legal status to illegal workers. But Dr. Papademetriou, who is now president of the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research group in Washington, said his heart sank when he learned about the legalization process, which he believes will create a market for counterfeit documents.
In the late 1980's, immigration officials approved more than 90 percent of the 1.3 million amnesty applications for a specialized program for agricultural workers, even though they had identified possible fraud in nearly a third of those applications. The general amnesty, which legalized 1.7 million people, worked much more efficiently, though some of its applications raised similar concerns.
Dr. Papademetriou, recalling the difficulties 20 years ago, said: "We're going back to 1986. Do we ever learn anything?"
The bills share some striking similarities, but there are also clear differences, providing fodder for advocates on both sides of the debate. Lawmakers and immigration experts have been comparing the bills as it has become increasingly likely that the current legislation will pass the Senate this week.
Unlike the 1986 amnesty, the current bill requires illegal immigrants to work and pay steep fines and back taxes before becoming legal permanent residents. The Chamber of Commerce, which opposed Senate Bill 1200, supports the current legislation, which calls for the creation of a computer system to help businesses verify the legal status of employees, stiffer penalties for employers who disregard the law and a guest worker program to accommodate future flows of immigrant workers.
Meanwhile, the Homeland Security Department is expanding its fraud-detection capabilities, officials say. And today, there is much greater political and public pressure for keeping the border secure and cracking down on employers.
But supporters and critics agree that the immigration system created by the current bill, like the one created in 1986, may be vulnerable to fraud, and they raise concerns about the government's commitment to maintaining adequate financing for border security and employee verification. They also warn that the burden on the Homeland Security Department, which would carry out the program, would be enormous.
Two decades ago, about three million illegal immigrants were eligible for amnesty. This time, roughly 10 million people are expected to be eligible for legalization.
Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida, dismissed the recent criticism, saying it was coming from lawmakers who "oppose this bill and are looking for a way to kill it."
There is no denying, however, that the 1986 amnesty has cast a long shadow over the legislation. It is the invisible enemy lurking in nearly every Congressional debate, challenging and dogging even the most eloquent champions of immigrants. These days, skeptical senators pepper their speeches with repeated references to its failures.
Many lawmakers engaged in this legislative fray are veterans of 1986, and several senators supported amnesty then, including Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania; Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa; Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana; Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York; and John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts.
Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, who supports the current bill, voted against amnesty in 1986.
Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and a vocal opponent of the proposed legalization, also opposed the 1986 amnesty. Mr. Sensenbrenner and many House Republicans vehemently oppose this year's bill, leaving its future uncertain.
Proposals for Immigration Reform (May 16, 2006) On Monday, Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, moved to limit debate this week to ensure a final vote on the bill before Memorial Day. Meanwhile, lawmakers voted in favor of an amendment that would place National Guard troops on the United States border with Mexico.
"Since the '86 law did not succeed, people are understandably skeptical," said Mr. Specter, who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "But this time, things are different."
In 1986, immigrant groups and many Democrats opposed the amnesty, fearing that restraints on employers would lead companies to avoid hiring legal immigrants or citizens with unusual names. Today, Democrats, immigrant groups and business leaders are among the strongest backers of the bill.
Supporters say better technology exists to create counterfeit-resistant cards to help employers distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants, secure the border and root out fraud. They say President Bush has demonstrated his commitment to enforcement by asking Congress for $1.9 billion to pay for putting up to 6,000 more National Guard troops on the Mexico border.
Structurally, though, there are still parallels to 1986. Then, as now, the legislation created two separate programs, a general legalization program and a program specifically for agricultural workers. And as in 1986, the agricultural program's rules in this year's bill are less stringent.
Under the legalization program, illegal immigrants would have to prove that they have lived in the United States for five years or more to qualify. Illegal immigrants who have been here two to five years could also apply, though they would have to depart the country first and participate in a temporary guest worker program before trying for legal residency. Both sets of applicants would have six months to apply.
Under the agriculture program, applicants would have to prove they had performed agricultural work for 150 days in 2005. They would be given 18 months to apply. Some critics fear the gap between the two programs would touch off a rush to the farmworker program.
Doris Meissner, who studied the 1986 amnesty and later ran the federal immigration agency under President Bill Clinton, warned that many illegal immigrants, who often lack documentation, would most likely turn to the black market to find them. Ms. Meissner also questioned the assumption that illegal immigrants who failed to qualify for legalization would leave the country. That did not happen in 1986.
"The shift on the part of business is critical," said Ms. Meissner, who works with Dr. Papademetriou at the Migration Policy Institute here.
Senator Kennedy agreed. He described questions about fraud and the Homeland Security Department's administrative capacity as "a legitimate concern." But he said the consensus on employers would make a big difference.
"It's going to be enforced," he said.
Former Senator Alan K. Simpson of Wyoming, a Rpublican and a chief sponsor of the 1986 amnesty, said the Senate's immigration proposal would be doomed if enforcement efforts flagged again.
"Then, there will be more amnesties," he said, "and more chaos."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/23/washington/23amnesty.html?ex=1306036800&en=ed7c0795b9f13882&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss0 -
quote:Originally posted by akfanatik
this truley is a nightmare, a republican is doing crazy demo liberal stuff, and just think what will happen in 08, when a demo is almost garaunteed to be elected because of douche bag bush, hes doing an absolutley horrible job, what possible possitive outcome could be derived from giving millions of lawbreakers who are bringing the downfall of our country amnesty. this is completely irrational and insensible
The only hope is that there will be a backlash on the Dems over their support for this immigration bill. Maybe we'll see a swift departure of the two party lock on Washington.
Think I'll write in Sessions!
Allen0 -
Dems going down tooPork-barrel Democratz Feeling the Heat
The Democrats, flush from their 2006 election gains, took over Congress in January, promising to end the legislative stalemate and pass a sweeping agenda for reform. Nearly six months later, they have backpedaled on their promises of reform; they've made little progress on major legislation; their job-approval ratings have taken a nosedive; and there's talk for the first time that House Democrats could lose seats to the Republicans in 2008.
Robert D. Novak: Bush's0 -
quote:Originally posted by spryor
Just what, exactly, keeps that traitor from being impeached..?
...by our courageous elected officials?
.....mainly agreement and collusion with what is happening, partly apathy, partly denial and a portion of fear.0 -
One thing to admire about Al Quaeda....all they want is foreignors out of their country.
Bush doesn't understand them nor the citizens of this country.
If it's a war he wants it'll eventually be a war he gets.0 -
Where are all the Bush lovers now? Not here to shout down the "liberals" who happened to think Bush sucked 6 years ago.
Hate to say I told you so, but I told you so!0 -
To some degree, you have a valid point. But not to the degree I think you think. I think most of us found many of Bush's policy's questionable early on. He clearly was not the conservative we had hoped for and thought we were electing. But he was/is IMO still better than Gore or Kerry. Our, or at least my "support" of Bush was because the alternatives were even worse.
I think Bush has done a good job on the economy.Especially considering that he had the failing false economy of the Clinton administration and the further damage of 9/11 to overcome. And I support the war on terror. As I believe most conservatives do. I've never believed the rhetoric that Bush has lost the support of his base because of Iraq. He has lost it principly over the illegal immigration issue. But facts are facts. Bush has never hid his opinions on this issue. We elected anyway, knowing what they were. Believeing,or hoping that he would sway to the will of his base. And he has not. And has therefore lost his base.0 -
We are all fools... Bush ... all of them came from strong Blue State raising and attitudes.
I reckon the old saying is all too true...You can lead a horse's ass to water but you can't make him drink!!
Bush is a freaking Blue Stater by birth and by destiny.... A cowboy hat, and a YeeHaw, that would have fooled Hopalong Cassidy!!!!0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
20 comments