posted on May 25, 2006 09:11:04 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) - Legislation to secure U.S. borders and offer millions of illegal immigrants access to the American dream cleared the Senate on Thursday, a rare election-year reach across party lines and a triumph for President Bush.
The 62-36 vote cleared the way for arduous summertime compromise talks with the House and its more conservative measure - with no guarantee of success.
``Why not say to those undocumented workers who are working the jobs that the rest of us refuse, come out from the shadows,'' said Arizona Republican John McCain, a key architect of the bill.
The legislation includes money to better secure the borders, provide a new guest worker program and give an eventual shot at citizenship to many of the estimated 11 million to 12 million immigrants in the country illegally.
The bill ``strengthens our security and reflects our humanity,'' said Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., McCain's partner in Senate compromise. ``It is intended to keep out those who would harm us and welcome those who contribute to our country.''
Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and the Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, both sided with supporters, a reflection of the bipartisan backing for a bill that was months in the drafting and survived several near-death experiences.
Conservative critics attacked the legislation to the end after trying unsuccessfully to pull it apart with amendments.
``This bill will not secure our borders,'' said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., one of the most persistent critics.
``This is amnesty,'' added David Vitter, R-La., who tried last week to strip out provisions relating to citizenship.
Not so, said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, in a rebuttal to weeks of debate. ``They have to pay a fine. They have to undergo a criminal background check. They have to pay back taxes, they have to learn English and they have to go to the back of the line,'' he said, referring to illegal immigrants who would apply for citizenship.
Still, Sessions, Vitter, John Cornyn of Texas and others echoed a view widely held among House Republicans, many of whom have vigorously denounced the Senate bill as well as Bush's call for a ``comprehensive approach'' to the issue.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
People put their hand on the bible, and swear to uphold the constitution. They do not put their hand on the constitution, and swear to uphold the bible.
posted on May 26, 2006 05:15:41 AM
Imo, the House will not go along with the Senate bill. Too many Americans are NOT happy with illegals here...and do not want to see ANY form of amnesty.
Plus only 1/3 of the Senate is up for re-election this November....but ALL those in the House are. Might just improve their ablility to 'listen' to what the voters want a LOT better.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation:
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack.
Ann Coulter
posted on May 26, 2006 07:20:13 AM
So Linda, what is the realistic plan that you think should be implemented. I think we already showed that the "put them all on a bus and they'll be gone in a year" plan was not realistic. So basically there are three options...
1) Go with the Senate plan of providing a path to citizenship for those already here and cracking down on those that attempt to come in the future
2) Go with the House plan that is realistically not implementable and will cost hundreds of millions of dollars even as it fails but will placate voters
3) Offer a realistic compromise between the two bills which is actually implementable.
We know that we can't round them all up and put them on a bus and have them gone in a year.
We know that charging all that are apprehended as felons and putting them into the system will cause our judicical system to come to a grinding hault plus we simply do not have the money to jail them all so that won't work.
Do you have a realistic solution that you would like to see come about in the compromise process or do you believe that the messge is more important than the reality?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
People put their hand on the bible, and swear to uphold the constitution. They do not put their hand on the constitution, and swear to uphold the bible.
posted on May 26, 2006 08:56:32 PM
Cracking down how fenix? there is nothing in the senate bill for "cracking down". But it does allow Fox or whomever the president of mexico is at the time some consultation on immigration policy here in the US, which is total BS.
Senate has sold the American people down the river with their bill, but at least the House is saying they will not bend over to the Senate on this. They know it is election time.
But then again if the Senate's bill leads to bloodshed, which is another idea being tossed about in many circles, that would be ok with you because you think it is realistic.
Making those people felons would not have to hurt one thing, they just get labled and put on the bus home, never allowed to enter legally.
Caught a second time immediate incarceration in a prison with chain gangs. They want to work here let them work. In prison.
If I were a legal immigrant here, I would be bringing every family member over right now and claim they have been here 5 years, how the hell is that going to be disproved?
Just admit it, Senate fcked the American people royally.
posted on May 26, 2006 10:37:40 PM
::But then again if the Senate's bill leads to bloodshed, which is another idea being tossed about in many circles, that would be ok with you because you think it is realistic.::
What the hell are you talking about? I thought we already dicussed your constant failure to accuratly attribute thoughts to me.
::Making those people felons would not have to hurt one thing, they just get labled and put on the bus home, never allowed to enter legally.::
They have to be charged until they re processed and our legal system does not allow you to label an individual a felon without giving them the right to a trial.
That requires the time and resources of an already overstressed legal system. What did you think they were going to do, tatto Felon on their forarm and send them on their way?
::If I were a legal immigrant here, I would be bringing every family member over right now and claim they have been here 5 years, how the hell is that going to be disproved?::
The kids will have to provide school records, you will have to provide rent receipts, payroll receipts, pay fines, pay taxes on estimated income if no payroll receipts are available and all adults will have to be employed with documentation from employers sponsoring their work visas. General rule of thumb when going thru that proces is if your documentation file is less than two inches thick, you are going to have problems. And they need to be verifiable. If you are offering payroll recipts, both the employers records and federal tax records better match.
In terms of the cracking down comment, I was reffering to strengthening the border and the bill contains the following measures...
About 6,000 National Guard troops will be sent to the border on a temporary basis.
1,000 new Border Patrol agents will be added this year, and 14,000 by the year 2011.
New surveillance equipment will be installed.
370 miles of triple-layered fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers will be built.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
People put their hand on the bible, and swear to uphold the constitution. They do not put their hand on the constitution, and swear to uphold the bible.
posted on May 27, 2006 04:12:01 AM
Your mind is an open book, we have already made that point. Only failure is your denial.
As I have said the House is not going to bend over for the Senate and they are talking the Senate bill will die in conference.
Laws can and have been changed. It can be done quite easily to make an illegal a felon and send them packing. 20 mins at a magistrate, you either are a legal resident or you're not. Illegals deserve no protections legal residents have.
posted on May 27, 2006 06:19:12 AM
So, my question is: How do they plan to ID the illegals? Honestly, do they think they are going to come out of the shadows knowing they have to pay back taxes and a fine and be thrown to the back of the line? They aren't willing to "get in line" now. If they did, they wouldn't be illegals. What incentive is this?
I agree that the senate has (as Ron so eloquently put it) "fcked the American people royally". If you don't agree, I don't know what to tell you.
How the American people feel about this will show up in November. This was a way to try and secure the Hispanic vote. Nothing else. Just like our Secretary of State, Blackwell, using tactics to secure the African American vote here in Ohio. Are people really so stupid that they can't see that??
posted on May 27, 2006 08:03:31 AM
I think those that are against this bill are going to have to make up their minds.
Ron here thinks people are going to flock for the borders for the opportunity to gain citizenship and Cheryl believes that even the ones that are here won't bother.
Cheryl - in answer to your question.. because they can get the citizenship that they would not normally be able to attain. The process is going to be completely different. The average unemployed man living in Mexico or guatamala that wants to come to the US is never going to be granted a visa. Most of the workers that are here would have never stood a change of being able to legally enter this country to work. With the new proposal, that possibility which was never really there for them before, is now and most are going to seek it. Sure there will be some that won't e able to or that will chose not to but if this bill passes in this form I think you'll start seeing a number of stories about the lines at INS offices of people coming forward to start the process.
I predict that if this goes forward, the fastest growing employment field over the next few years is going to be Immigration Law.
BTW - there is going to be some big money High Tech lobbying to move get the House to move closer to this Senate bill since the Senate bill also nearly doubles the annual quota for H-1B work visas (for highly skilled workers).
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
People put their hand on the bible, and swear to uphold the constitution. They do not put their hand on the constitution, and swear to uphold the bible.
posted on May 27, 2006 10:23:46 AM
Thinking about it in a way that an illegal may possibly view it would be to think that; I have a good job here in the US and am making 100 times more than I would have made in my home town. Sure I have to pay some taxes but it is still a heck of a lot better than what I had before. When I, my wife or my kids get sick I can take them to the free clinic and they can be taken care of and speaking of my kids they get a free education that they couldn't get back home. From my paycheck, I am able to send some money home for mom, dad and my brothers and sisters so they can live a better life too and get a business started on the money and one day I will return, when it's time to retire and I will live like a king, in my home town. So now I see these idiot Americans rattling their sabers around demanding that something be done about me and my people being here but no one is coming to get me, no one is taking my job away from me, we still get free health care, my kids are still in school. They're offering citizenship if I pay back taxes and come forward. Hey i'm not stupid, i'm not going to put my head in their noose so they can send me back. It was too hard for me to come here when I did and later to bring my family. The way I see it, I already am a citizen in my mind. They aren't coming after me, so i'm not going to do anything different than what i'm doing right now. Let them rattle their sabers, it's all just a bunch of talk anyways. America trully is the land of milk and honey and these sleeping idiots that are running it sure have a good thing going on here. I hope they never wake up.
posted on May 27, 2006 10:32:04 AM
Hey Bear....you're a GREAT problem solver.
Then we could fill that mote with either sharks or piranha's....and there'd be no problems again.
Posted warning signs in Espanol, of course.
--------------
fenix, I've answered that time and time again.
Build those fences....catch and don't release illegals as they are found. Deport them back...not just across the border...but to southern mexico.
Threatened trade with mexico IF they don't stop encouraging AND AIDING their own citizens to cross over here.
HIGHLY tax the money any mexican sends to mexico....by at least 10% - 15%. That way at least we'll get SOME of the money they COST US reimbursed to our coffures.
Or...as I've said before....post signs that say...INVADERS will be shot. It would only take a few before they CLEARLY BELIEVED we were seriously.
Their military doesn't have a problem with shooting at our border patrols....nor do their drug trafficers. So there could be no complaint about that...since they're already doing it to us.
While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation:
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack.
Ann Coulter
posted on May 27, 2006 10:41:22 AM
I'm taking the chance to agree with cheryl on this issue.....since it's probably the only one we agree upon. Accentuate the positive, as they say.
"How the American people feel about this will show up in November. This was a way to try and secure the Hispanic vote. Nothing else."
That's clearly what's going on with the Senate. They aren't listening to 70% of what AMERICANS want....even LEGAL mexican American's who DID come in the legal way. Many of THEM resent how the illegals have done it.
But, as we ALL saw during the first mexican [largely] protest....carrying their mexican flags....flaunting THEIR anti-American policy positions.....they want [even DEMAND] that we except that breaking OUR LAWS is just fine. And they have a ton of support from their American born 'brothers/sisters' to do just that.
That, imo, was PROOF of their voting power scarring our Senate to death....and thereby not wanting to do anything to OFFEND the ILLEGALS.
And now our Senate has gone along with THEM.
Not only does their bill eventually allow them to become citizens...it increases the numbers of legal mexican immigrants that can be allowed to come here in the next generation. Giving them even MORE voting power to change our laws so that they can FORCE any and all who want to come from mexico to be allowed to do so. [open borders that so many LIBERALS want ]
posted on May 27, 2006 11:02:24 AM
::They aren't listening to 70% of what AMERICANS want::
Would you care to offer support for that number? Lat time I checked, that is almost exactly the percentage of people that felt that there SHOULD be a path to citizenship for immigrants that are already here.
In fact, according to PollingReport.com, when asked:
Would you favor or oppose allowing illegal immigrants who have done the following to stay and work in the United States: paid a fine, been in the U.S. for at least five years, paid any back taxes they owe, can speak English, and have no criminal record?
77% of respondants would favor it, only 19% oppose it.
As far as I can see, it is ithe House and not the Senate that ignoring the will of the people.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
People put their hand on the bible, and swear to uphold the constitution. They do not put their hand on the constitution, and swear to uphold the bible.
posted on May 27, 2006 11:16:41 AM
I do believe you're quite capable of doing your OWN search, fenix.
MOST of the other polls say just the opposite of what your poll states.
So, no, I won't spending anymore of my time trying to convince YOU of anything. You have ALWAYS favored anything that benefits the mexican's over the wishes of most American's.
I'm tired of wasting my time to convince you otherwise.
While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation:
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack.
Ann Coulter
posted on May 27, 2006 11:45:43 AM
This is an interesting poll. It's broken down by party affiliations, and race. It is clear as a bell that this government is NOT listening to the majority of Americans.
By a wide margin, Americans want lower immigration levels and tighter immigration controls.
That's according to a new poll by Zogby and Associates, a nationally known polling firm.
Across the board, and often by margins of 2-to-1 or larger, the poll found Americans want the number of immigrants allowed in the United States reduced and a tough approach taken with those here illegally.
The poll, released Wednesday, was conducted among 1,000 likely voters between April 17 and 24. A "likely voter" is one who has voted at least once in the last two years and is likely to vote in the coming election.
By a 67-26% margin, poll respondents said the number of immigrants, both legal and illegal, allowed into the United States should be reduced. Eight percent said they were not sure.
The poll also found major skepticism over the claim that illegal aliens perform work Americans won't do overwhelming support for a "get tough" bill passed by the House of Representatives; a belief that government lacked the ability to screen immigrants; and the belief that border enforcement efforts have been "grossly inadequate."
The poll was taken before the "Day Without Immigrants" May 1, so its effects are not reflected in results. However, polls
taken since have shown the event has caused a backlash and made Americans even sterner in their beliefs that the country's borders should be tightened.
The Zogby poll asked nine specific, rather generically worded questions. In every one, the vast majority of respondents favored a "hawkish" approach to immigration. The first question offered respondents two choices:
A - "The time has come to reduce immigration so we can assimilate the immigrants already in the county," and, B - "Immigrants are assimilating fine, and we should continue the current level of immigration."
A whopping 67% picked A; just 26% picked B. Eight percent said they weren't sure. There was a difference between Republicans and Democrats, though not a big one. Some 74% of Republicans favored A, while 61% of Democrats did. Only 21% of Republicans favored B, while 32% of Democrats did.
There was a small difference between whites and blacks. Whites favored A 70-23, with 6 percent unsure. Blacks favored A 65-26%, with 9 percent saying they weren't sure. Even Hispanics - around whom much of the immigration discussion has been centered - favored A, though by a smaller margin: 45 to 36. Nineteen percent weren't sure.
Of the 27 demographic groups included in the poll (GROUPED along religious, ideological, income and regional lines), only one favored response B to A; "progressives" picked it 51 to 43 percent. Majorities of the 26 other groups supported A. The closest split was among Jews. Forty-four percent favored A; 39% favored B; 17% were unsure.
The second question stated, "There are currently 37 million legal and illegal immigrants in the United States and 1.5
million new legal and illegal immigrants settle in the country each year - Do you think the number entering the country is too high, too low or just about right?"
The results were a resounding victory for those wishing to curtail immigration – 66 percent picked "too high," 26% said "about right," while just 2% said "too low."
With the exception of Hispanics, majorities in all the other 26 demographic groups said there were too many immigrants allowed into the United States.
The poll asked whether respondents supported a House bill that, among other things, would make being here illegally a felony - or a Senate bill, which would allow 12 million illegals to apply for green cards and double the number of green cards.
The bills were separate questions (3 and 4). Support for the tougher House bill was much stronger. Sixty-nine percent said the House bill was a good or very good idea, while just 27 percent said it was a bad or very bad idea. Fifty percent of respondents thought the weaker Senate bill was a bad or very bad idea, while 43 percent said it was a good or very good idea.
The House bill received majority opposition from only one group - progressives, who opposed it 56-41. Jews just about split (48% supported, 47% opposed). Hispanics supported the proposal narrowly - 53% supported it; 44% opposed.
The Senate bill drew majority support from only a handful of the 27 demographic groups. Jews supported it by the widest margin - 63% thought it was a good or very good idea, while 34% said it was a bad or very bad idea.
Hispanics supported it 62 to 27 percent.
Moderates, liberals, progressives and those who made more than $75,000 annually all supported it, though narrowly. Strongest opposition came from conservatives - 75% opposed it; 21% supported it. Opposition was also strong among blacks - 65% opposed it; just 30% supported it.
Question 5 gave respondents three options – the House bill, the Senate bill, or round-ups and deportation of illegals - and asked them which was the best way to deal with illegal immigration.
The House bill had majority support from every group but two. Hispanics favored the Senate bill 54-40, while Jews favored it 64-28. Progressives split, with 49% supporting the House bill and 47% supporting the Senate bill. Support for the House bill was roughly 2-1 in every other group. But there was not a lot of support for mass deportations. Just 12 percent favored them. Support was strongest among those who called themselves "very conservative" (30%); those who make under $25,000 (19%) and blacks (17%).
Question 6 removed the deportation option and asked respondents to pick between the House and Senate bills. Every group, except progressives, picked the House bill. Hispanic support was narrow (45% favored the House
http://www.standardspeaker.com - Standard Speaker Powered by Mambo Generated: 27 May, 2006, 14:32 approach; 39% favored the Senate), but every other group favored the House bill by at least 10 points.
By overwhelming margins, Americans think the augment that illegals do work Americans won't is poppycock.
Question 7 offered two answers: A - "There are plenty of Americans to do such (low wage) jobs, employers just need to pay higher wages and treat workers better to attract Americans," and B - "America needs large numbers of immigrants because there are not enough Americans to fill such jobs."
Majorities of all 27 demographic groups picked A. Strongest support for A came from those who make under $25,000 (90%); blacks (84%); and those who make between $25,000 and $34,999 (82%). Democrats and independents (75%) supported A slightly more strongly than Republicans (70%). Hispanics supported A by a
wide 65-20 margin, while support for A was weakest among Jews (55-35).
Question 8 read, "The Senate has proposed offering permanent residence and citizenship to the 12 million illegal immigrants in the country, and doubling legal immigration in the future from 1 million to 2 million a year. How much confidence do you have in the government's ability to screen all of these new applications and weed out terrorists
and criminals?"
By overwhelming margins, majorities in almost all the 27 demographic groups said they had little or no confidence in government's screening ability. The only group that expressed confidence in government's ability was Jews - 56% said that had some or a lot of confidence in its screening ability, while 44% said they had little or none.
The final question asked whether respondents believed government made an effort to enforce immigration laws - with the choice being, "Efforts in the past have been grossly inadequate and the government has never really tried to enforce immigration laws," or, " We have made a real effort to enforce our immigration laws and we have failed because we are not allowing in enough immigrants legally."
By overwhelming majorities, respondents favored the first answer. Seventy percent of all Americans picked it, while just 19 % picked the second. The split was similar among all groups excepts Hispanics, who favored the first response, 47-29, and Jews, who favored the second, 45-44. Zogby's firm is working on the Hazleton Area Community Assessment and expects to have it completed by the end of June.
On the Web: www.cis.org/articles/2006/2006poll.html
posted on May 27, 2006 11:47:08 AM
:eport them back...not just across the border...but to southern mexico.::
And here I thought I said reasonable. We aready discussed how unreasason the bussingeveryone back to the border concept was financially but now you want to add an additional 5-6 days of drive time on each trip to get to and return from the southern borders of Mexico?
There is anbsolutely nothing rational in that solution Linda. What in the world is the point of passing a bill that has no hope of ever being implemented?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
People put their hand on the bible, and swear to uphold the constitution. They do not put their hand on the constitution, and swear to uphold the bible.
posted on May 27, 2006 01:17:24 PM
Hey Linda- why is it that you are constantly refusing to back up your "facts" these days?
I did a search - I quoted the results and gave the source here. They completely contradicted what you said and refuse to offer any form of support of.
Not shocking. Doesn't seem that much of anything you post lately is actually supportable. Strange coming from someone that used to love cut and paste and linking to articles.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
People put their hand on the bible, and swear to uphold the constitution. They do not put their hand on the constitution, and swear to uphold the bible.
[ edited by fenix03 on May 27, 2006 01:23 PM ]
posted on May 27, 2006 01:21:44 PM
That's a really wierd poll Cheryl. Did you notice that it does not actually ask if they support a route to citizenship for persons already in the country?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
People put their hand on the bible, and swear to uphold the constitution. They do not put their hand on the constitution, and swear to uphold the bible.
posted on May 27, 2006 08:32:18 PM
That is one of them.
And more can be read about their poll on their own website.....rather than via another source.
And one part of it that disproves the accusations from SOME who call OTHERS racists, because they are totally against illegal immigration...was the part where they showed how the LEGAL hyspanics felt about illegal immigration. Almost HALF didn't.
Guess they must be 'racists' too then. NOT.
----------
To answer fenix's question about NOT posting links when ask to...because in all my years of doing so...it has NEVER convinced ONE liberal thinking person to CHANGE THEIR MINDS. So, I've decided I'm not wasting my time doing it anymore. Their positions are set in CEMENT.
Believe what you want....don't believe...I could care less. I will however repeat what I've read, heard and AGREE with and will post links WHEN I WISH TO.
posted on May 27, 2006 08:40:21 PM
There were TWO good news articles on illegal immigration today...both in the WA Times. I'll post links cause I want to do so.
She says she doesn't support illegal immigration...but when their legislature passed anti-illegal leg. before...she vetoed it.
IF she does it again, I hope it enrages enough Arizonians to IMPEACH her or RECALL her sorry rear.
-------
Then it was also reported that the MinuteMenStartingToBuildThoseFences...to keep the illegals OUT. And mention who is providing SOME financial support....and if anyone is interested maybe you could find a couple of bucks to send in support of their effort also.
posted on May 27, 2006 09:14:54 PM
And, as of today, we still have some republican leaders in the house that are saying they will NOT vote for ANY bill that includes amnesty for illegals.
I can ONLY hope they hold to their public supported positions....but the odds aren't in the American public's favor, I'm afraid.
-----------------
'Amnesty' jams compromise bill
By Jerry Seper and Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
May 27, 2006
One of the top House negotiators on immigration said yesterday the only way a final compromise bill can pass is if the Senate drops its path to citizenship for current illegal aliens, even as Sen. John McCain announced plans to try to broker a deal.
****Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said he is willing to accept a temporary-worker program for future workers, but citizenship for illegal aliens -- which he said definitely constitutes "amnesty" -- is out.
****"A guest-worker program I think can be on the table if it does not contain an amnesty, but only if the employer sanctions and the increased border patrols are effective," the Wisconsin Republican said.
****It's not just Mr. Sensenbrenner. House Republicans are lining up behind him in their opposition to the Senate bill, including Rep. Charlie Norwood, Georgia Republican, who said it "constitutes treachery against U.S. sovereignty" and called it "dead on arrival in the House."
****"The U.S. Senate voted to sell out the American people to vested and foreign interests with passage of a bill granting not only amnesty, but preferential treatment of illegal aliens over American citizens," Mr. Norwood said.
****Meanwhile, two members of the Republican Main Street Partnership, a group of moderate to liberal Republicans, said they will try to broker a deal on their own.
****Mr. McCain, the Arizona Republican who was a driving force behind the Senate's bill, and Rep. Michael N. Castle, Delaware Republican, announced they already have begun meeting to try to reach an agreement.
****The Senate on Thursday passed its broad immigration bill, which offers a chance for citizenship to millions of illegal aliens, increases legal immigration, creates a separate program for future foreign workers, builds 370 miles of fencing on the border, and approves hiring thousands of new border and interior law-enforcement personnel.
****The House in December passed an immigration bill that focuses on enforcement including 698 miles of fencing, thousands of new enforcement officers, a system to check for employers to verify that both current and future employees are legally able to work, and a provision extending criminal penalties to cover all illegal aliens and raising the crime to a felony.
****The Senate bill passed on the strength of Democratic votes, 62-36. Four Democrats and 32 Republicans -- a majority of the Senate Republican Conference -- voted against it. The House bill passed 239-182, with 17 Republicans and 164 Democrats opposing it.
****From the White House standpoint, press secretary Tony Snow said the administration has done what it could to take the border-security objection off the table, and have now "gotten past that important benchmark."
****"Border enforcement starts the first full week of June. It's already happened," Mr. Snow said, referring to the deployment date for the first of up to 6,000 National Guard troops President Bush wants sent to the border. "What the president has proposed is far more aggressive and robust than anything that had been considered by either house."
****Mr. Snow said that means Republicans who wanted border security first now can say they "got our way," and said that frees those Republicans to now take a look at a guest-worker plan and a path to citizenship for some illegal aliens -- the components of a "comprehensive" plan.
****He said the president is not going to back off his principles, but knows he will have to work within the legislative process.
****Mr. Snow specifically mentioned Mr. Sensenbrenner as a sign of progress: "Somebody like Chairman Sensenbrenner, who's got some real problems with various aspects, has said publicly that the temporary-worker program has merit."
****But Mr. Sensenbrenner has always distinguished between a program for future foreign workers, which he says is acceptable, and a path to citizenship for current illegal aliens, which he rejects.
****He says the solution to current illegal aliens is better interior enforcement and sanctions against employers who hire illegals, which would dry up the supply of jobs and force aliens to return home through attrition.
****Mr. Sensenbrenner said the White House already has been trying to move the House off its position, and hasn't had much luck. He said the White House sent Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove to meetings of the House Republican Conference last week and this week to argue the White House case, but met with stiff resistance.
****"They jumped all over Rove, and they said the president is not where the American people are at," Mr. Sensenbrenner said.
****And Mr. Norwood said if the House and Senate negotiators agree on stiff border security, only then should lawmakers turn their attention to current illegal aliens. He said those aliens should be allowed to join a temporary-worker program but would have to return home at the end, and then get in line to come back legally.
posted on May 28, 2006 06:39:25 AM
::And one part of it that disproves the accusations from SOME who call OTHERS racists, because they are totally against illegal immigration...was the part where they showed how the LEGAL hyspanics felt about illegal immigration. Almost HALF didn't.
Guess they must be 'racists' too then. NOT.::
I don't know about others Linda, but when I call refer to someone a racist, it is not because of their stance on illegal immigration. Case in point, Cheryl is very much against it and I have never once called her racist.
There are people here that I believe are racist but that belief stems from a pattern of posting, and usage of racial ephitaphs that leave no doubt as to their opinion of complete strangers based on nothing than their skin color or percieved nationality.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
People put their hand on the bible, and swear to uphold the constitution. They do not put their hand on the constitution, and swear to uphold the bible.
You will hear plenty of racial ephitaphs in my neighborhood. Around here nothing is based soley upon skin color, though. It's based on first hand experience with the people in this neighborhood - IOW your deeds. Around here, you can be white and be called the "n" word. (Although, not by me!) I heard the African American male across the street call the neighbor on the other side of him (a Hispanic) the "n" word the other day. Just last week, a teacher from the elementary school down the street from me had her class on a field trip to the park that is also down the street from me. She found a young African American boy shot in the neck and abdoman. He's in critical condition. Based upon exerience (not prejudice), everyone in the neighborhood speculates it was an African American drug dealer that hangs around here that did it. Like I said, most are judged around here by their deeds - not skin color.
posted on May 28, 2006 02:11:15 PM
I guess what I really was trying to say is that I don't find anyone on this board "racist". Biased in some cases, yes. Racist as I understand the term? No.
Edited to add: On the front page of our newspaper today, there were photos of people who were just made U.S. citizens this weekend here in Cleveland! They did it legally. Some have been here 9 or more years going through the process abiding by and respecting our laws. So, why in he@# should we give amnesty to anyone here illegally? Something worth having is worth fighting for. In most cases, something handed to you means very little in the end, but something you've had to work for is more precious than gold.
Cheryl
[ edited by cblev65252 on May 28, 2006 02:14 PM ]
