Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WHITE HOUSE VERIFIES IMMIGRATION REVIEW
The Liberty Committee ^ | 12/13/03 | Kent Snyder

Posted on 12/13/2003 5:24:56 AM PST by chicagolady

The White House yesterday said a new immigration review is under way that could lead to amnesty for millions of illegal aliens living and working in the United States. Confirmation of the review came during a White House briefing, just two days after Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said during a town hall meeting in Miami that the government had to "afford some kind of legal status" to the 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens in the country. "We've taken steps to improve border security — significant steps, I might add; have made great progress there. We've taken steps to improve the immigration infrastructure," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. "Those are some foundations for moving forward on a more orderly, safe and humane migration policy. "And this is a matter that really is under review at this point. We continue to look at it," Mr. McClellan said. Mr. Ridge, during a question-and-answer period after his Miami speech, said he would not support granting citizenship to illegal aliens now in the country "because they violated the law to get here," but the government needed to "determine how you can legalize their presence" and then institute an immigration enforcement policy to prevent future illegal entries. His comments drew harsh criticism from some congressional sources and immigration opponents. Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican and chairman of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, said Mr. Ridge should resign if he is unable or unwilling to enforce existing immigration laws. He said the secretary's comments would "open a floodgate" of illegal aliens "trying to sneak into the United States in order to be first in line for amnesty." Dan Stein, executive director of the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR), questioned what security interests of the United States were being served "by granting legal status to people whose identities cannot be confirmed and who already have shown an unwillingness to observe U.S. law? "The law has to be respected before you grandfather in the very people who disrespected it," he said. Various amnesty bills are pending in Congress, although none has been scheduled for debate or a vote. Congress approved an amnesty program in 1986, granting legal status to 2.7 million illegal aliens then in the country. The program contained increased enforcement and penalty policies aimed at ending illegal immigration, although the illegal alien population in the United States today is more than twice the total in 1986. Mr. McClellan said Mr. Bush "has always been a strong believer that America should be a welcoming society. We are, after all, a nation of immigrants, as he often points out." He said discussions with Mexico on a new amnesty proposal were ongoing prior to the September 11 attacks, but were halted. Mr. Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox had agreed to consider granting permanent residency, or green cards, to as many as 3 million Mexicans living illegally in the United States. Mr. McClellan also said that although some people had interpreted Mr. Ridge's comments as "some broad amnesty discussion," it was not that at all. "He's very involved in, obviously, overseeing border security and immigration matters, now under the new Department of Homeland Security," he said. "And I think he's been looking at the issue of the large number of illegal immigrants we do have in the country and looking at those that could be threats and those that are here for other reasons. "And so, he's just talking about the realities that we are facing now," he said. Asa Hutchinson, Homeland Security's undersecretary for border and transportation security, also defended Mr. Ridge's comments, saying they simply reflected ongoing debate in Congress over the immigration issue. "Secretary Ridge addressed it very honestly yesterday, engaged in that debate, but clearly this administration has not taken a firm policy position on that and the debate continues," Mr. Hutchinson said.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aliens; amnesty; bush43; immigration; immigrationstatus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last
To: Klickitat
"we are in grave times where the very survival of our nation and way of life will stand[s] in the balance."

Grave times indeed. Too bad most people don't know they are being buried.

From within.

From Council of the Americas

...The president has also announced an effort to pursue a free trade agreement with the nations of Central America. Success here will further strengthen our economic ties with those countries, and reinforce the great economic and political progress they've made over the last decade. Free trade with Central America will also move us toward an even broader aim -- a Free Trade Area of the Americas, up and running by January of 2005. The president is strongly committed to this goal, and all of our trade efforts are pointed in this direction....

I guess the thinking is if they first remove the perception of a Nation's border then the Nation ceases to exist.

61 posted on 12/13/2003 12:15:25 PM PST by ohmage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey
I have not recently heard any reports about Nader's view on amnesty for criminals. (To be consistent with "deep ecology" he should oppose it) As to Lieberman, he has done total reversal on many of his positions. Obviously you don't know what his present views are or you wouldn't be this defensive about it -- in Gore words "snippy."
<
62 posted on 12/13/2003 12:35:09 PM PST by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Klickitat
Agreed.
63 posted on 12/13/2003 12:50:50 PM PST by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

Comment #64 Removed by Moderator

Comment #65 Removed by Moderator

Comment #66 Removed by Moderator

Comment #67 Removed by Moderator

To: Veracruz
Sounds like Tom Ridge with an attitude.
68 posted on 12/13/2003 2:02:41 PM PST by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Henrietta
The difference between Dems and 'Pubs is....?

The speed at which they destroy middle-class America. The Repub's are just a tad slower than the demoRats.

69 posted on 12/13/2003 2:14:58 PM PST by Walkin Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Veracruz
Wow... three posts in a row ranting at me because I confronted your silly assertion? I'm not wasting days spelling out the differences between the Dems and GOP for someone who is either lacks the intelligence to tell the difference on their own or is so rabid that they don't care to begin with. Regarding my "lack of substance", I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just have a low IQ... start here and pick any book, literally MONTHS worth of substance for you.... http://www.booksfortheright.com/

70 posted on 12/13/2003 3:18:04 PM PST by Tamzee (Pennsylvanians for Bush! Join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PA4BushCheney/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Dante3
I have not recently heard any reports about Nader's view on amnesty for criminals. (To be consistent with "deep ecology" he should oppose it) As to Lieberman, he has done total reversal on many of his positions. Obviously you don't know what his present views are or you wouldn't be this defensive about it -- in Gore words "snippy."

Ahhh... so it's "snippy" to confront conservatives who consider voting for a socialist like Nader? The Green Party platform advocates legalization of "undocumented workers", as they call it. You are, of course, free to assume that they would be so much stricter about the requirements than the GOP would be. BTW, are you aware that the Green Party is openly socialist across the world and are just careful not to appear blatantly so in the U.S.? About Lieberman, are you honestly saying you believe he would be more conservative than George W. Bush?

Surprise for you, I do know his positions... he not only fully supports amnesty, he's campaigning on it.

REFORMING IMMIGRATION
Joe Lieberman has an immigration reform agenda that would create a new earned legalization status, strengthen family reunification, protect the rights of undocumented immigrants, and create an American Dream Fund to help all immigrants learn English. He would also create a work visa program and end the deadlock on alternative ID cards.

He's also campaigning on giving tax "rebates" to those 30 million who didn't get one under Bush (because they don't pay taxes to begin with.) And he is campaigning on universal health care. If you are considering placing your vote for him, perhaps you may wish to become familiar with the rest of his platform, also? www.joe2004.com

71 posted on 12/13/2003 3:33:06 PM PST by Tamzee (Pennsylvanians for Bush! Join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PA4BushCheney/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

Comment #72 Removed by Moderator

Comment #73 Removed by Moderator

Comment #74 Removed by Moderator

To: wolf24
Parties are coalitions, dear... there is one on the right and one on the left. Neither coalition is able to represent each member 100%... conservatives are only one portion of the GOP and the GOP only makes up approximately half the votes that count, the Dems the other half. Note my point about "votes that count", fringe parties are irrelevant and can only act as spoilers in a two-party system.

Your turn.... please tell me exactly how our withholding support from the GOP and allowing a Dem in office will further conservatism? The last time we did so we gifted the country with the America-hating Clinton and the Beast... our flag and military were spit on, terrorists were given the welcome mat to attack us, our defense was sold out to our enemies some of which are now actively pursuing nukes, we almost adopted a socialist health-care system, and our Presidential Office was used for sex, perjury and selling pardons to the vilest of criminals. And that is just a partial list... tell me why this is SO MUCH BETTER than having a Republican President that makes some policy decisions further toward the center than we wish?
75 posted on 12/13/2003 4:05:10 PM PST by Tamzee (Pennsylvanians for Bush! Join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PA4BushCheney/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Veracruz
Another ridiculous assertion on your part... tax credits for people buying their own insurance is not "socialised medicine".

Are you even a conservative?
76 posted on 12/13/2003 4:17:02 PM PST by Tamzee (Pennsylvanians for Bush! Join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PA4BushCheney/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

Comment #77 Removed by Moderator

Comment #78 Removed by Moderator

Comment #79 Removed by Moderator

To: wolf24
Was my question too hard for you? How do we advance conservatism by allowing a Dem in office?

You apparently just want to rant about the GOP.... yes, we do have a GOP President and Congress. That majority in Congress is only the barest minimum, however, we need more so we can cease compromising with the left so much to get right-wing measures put forward. You also complained about SCOTUS... please don't pretend to care about the Supreme Court decisions when you seem willing to have President Dean appoint the next couple of Justices rather than President Bush?

ANY President that is not 100% conservative is going to make decisions we don't agree with... live with it, a pure conservative can't get elected given our small percentage of the electorate. And yes, spending increased under Bush for a number of reasons, some I agree with and some I don't. The picture is a bit more complex than his critics wish, however. Did you realize that the huge increases in unemployment due to 9/11 aren't included in the "defense spending" figures you folks enjoy pointing out as only portion of the increase? I'm not happy with the amount of spending, either, but I'm rational enough to comprehend that conservatives are MUCH better off under a GOP president than a Dem one.

Ready to try to answer my question yet? How do we get more of what we want under a Dem than under a Republican?
80 posted on 12/13/2003 4:40:27 PM PST by Tamzee (Pennsylvanians for Bush! Join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PA4BushCheney/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson