Posted on 12/01/2004 3:09:17 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
Republicans who want to slow immigration to the United States and crack down on illegal immigrants believe they are gaining political strength and public backing, which may pose a problem next year for President Bush.
Bush has already signaled his intention to push a major proposal to allow some of the estimated 8 million to 10 million illegal immigrants in the country to gain legal work visas for up to six years as part of a "guest worker" program.
But he may face growing anti-immigrant sentiment, not only his own party but in the country at large, several opponents claimed.
"Public opinion is unquestionably on our side," said Paul Egan of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a Washington group that seeks to limit legal migration and strengthen U.S. borders.
"Americans are saying 'no' to Bush's guest worker program and 'no' to amnesty for illegal immigrants. Legislators are beginning to get the message that people are fed up of illegal immigration," Egan added.
Led by powerful Wisconsin Rep. James Sensenbrenner, the chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, anti-immigration conservatives recently defied the White House by insisting that a bill to reform the nation's intelligence services include anti-illegal alien provisions.
They want to prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining drivers licenses and withdraw recognition of ID cards issued by Latin American embassies.
These legislators also intend to try to block implementation of a recent U.S. agreement with Mexico to allow workers who have divided their working lives between the two countries to gain retirement benefits based on the combined credits earned from both countries.
The United States has similar agreements with 20 other countries. Bush must submit the agreement to the U.S. Congress, which has 60 days to block it, otherwise it takes effect.
POWERFUL CAUCUS
A congressional immigration reform caucus led by Colorado Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo had 72 members in the outgoing House committed to a program of cracking down on illegal aliens and restricting immigration.
"Sentiment has shifted dramatically in our favor over the past several years and even more in the past few months," Tancredo told Reuters. "We have a significant majority in our (Republican) conference and upward of 175 to 180 members of the House pretty much committed."
Angela Kelley of the National Immigration Forum, a pro-immigrant group, said Tancredo was exaggerating his support but conceded probably one third of the House was behind him.
Tancredo predicted "very rough sledding" for Bush's guest worker proposal, but said it was possible to get it enacted if the president expended a lot of political capital.
Immigration law expert Victor Romero of Penn State University believed the United States may be entering one of its periodic anti-immigration phases.
"History tells us this is cyclical and we may be seeing the front end of a cycle that suggests a more anti-immigration mood," he said.
Romero and others are concerned about some reports from around the country, including New York's Long Island, California and Virginia, of citizens expressing hostility to Hispanic day laborers, many in the country illegally.
Some public opinion polls in the past year show many Americans would like to see slower immigration. Only 16 percent in a CBS/New York Times poll last January said legal immigration to the United States should be increased; 45 percent said it should be lowered, and another third said it should stay at its current level.
I wonder if the main topic of the 2008 election will be immigration. If it is, we better nominate the right guy because you know the Democrats would snatch it up and try to make their candidate look "anti-immigration."
This article is full of the typical and intentional leftwing misrepresentations of people like Tancredo and Sensenbrenner.
Several times the phrase, "anti-immigrant" or "anti-immigration" are used to erroneously describe these congressmen. This is an intentional distortion.
The truth is that these congressmen, and the majority of Americans for that matter, are anti-mass immigration, and anti-amnesty. This Elsner guy from Reuters is no doubt well aware of this, yet he does what virtually all reporters do -- try and demonize the people who dare give voice to what is actually the mainstream sentiment.
The mainstream media is definitely biased on social and cultural issues, but I think it is most hopelessly biased on immigration. They are incapable of being fair.
MaDamn Clinton has already started.
Hillary is already zeroing in on this issue now.
Dipsh*t. We're not anti-immigration. We're anti-ILLEGAL immigration. Learn the difference.
A - freaking - men.
We need to remember this when nominating a candidate. I like Mark Sanford because of his strong fiscal conservatism but I don't know about his immigration stance. He was in the House before becoming Governor. Perhaps Tancredo as a running mate?
Stop this insanity now. Enforce immigration laws that are on the books.
Lock down and secure our borders.
Hillary is wise to step into this vaccuum.
It's pretty amazing that the the GOP is handing an issue so basic as enforcing existing laws over to her.
For the umpteen-millionth time, another American (me) is asking "What is it about 'ILLEGAL' that you don't understand?"
This is an issue that could be politically advantageous to anyone willing to risk the inevitable but bogus charges of racism and xenophobia. Most people want less immigration. Most people oppose amnesty. Most people oppose drivers licenses and in-state tuition for illegals...... Yet these mainstream views rarely find expression in the party leadership of either the GOP or Dems.
Unfortunately, it may be easier for someone like Hillary to take advantage of this. If she were to to come out hard against illegal immigration, then it is unlikely that the media or the ethnic interests groups would tar and feather her as they would a Republican. In fact, the descriptions "anti-immigrant" and "anti-immigration" would never appear in an article about Hillary, unless it was to serve as a contrast in pointing out how Hillary's hard-line about illegal immigration is principled whereas with the nasty Republicans who say the same things are unquestionably "anti-whatever."
Then -- God forbid -- she should win the Presidency she would of course do nothing about it because to do so would deny the Dems of many future voters once they receive an amnesty.
I think we need to take a good hard look at the societal effects our current policies governing legal immigration are having & don't really care who doesn't like it.
Hitlery already did. She attacked Bush (IIRC) for porous borders.
This issue is way past time to resolve. GW did not create it and did not cause it (the immigration problem) and I think it's unfair for many posters (who are trolls, IMO) to blame the POTUS.
I also disagree with many posters on FR who defend unlimited immigration/illegal immigration. They obviously have a hidden agenda.
That said, it is the case that America will be forced to deal decisively with this problem since we cannot economically assimilate these people any longer.
It's like a family who have worked hard to provide a good home and standard of living for their loved ones. Then "uncle Bob" and his low class family move in. Before you know it, the home, etc., of family #1 is in the toilet.
Americans deserve the chance to vote on this issue. We're the ones paying for the mess caused by pandering politicians. WHY AREN'T OUR VOICES BEING HEARD?
Just in the Leftist efforts to accommodate large numbers of unassimilated types, there has been a tremendous undermining of American cultural norms--even such basics as honoring the Founding Fathers--in American public schools. Many adults are not even aware of how far the emphasis on individual role models has shifted in the last few years.
Again, all other issues pale in comparison to this one. (See Immigration & The American Future.)
William Flax
He knows the difference full well, as do all the reporters and leftists who use this slimy tactic.
Any rationale examination of the proposals put forth by people like Tancredo would prove that he is anti-mass legal immigration, anti-all illegal immigration, and anti-amnesty.
Likewise, any fair look at what Americans consistently tell pollsters would show them to be the exact same things.
Another thing that the press and academics like to do is explain WHY Americans aren't so keen on unending mass immigration at a particular time, chalking it up to economic or security fears. This of course doesn't explain why public sentiments are pretty much the same during prosperous times as well. Its as though these people think it is unrationale to oppose mass immigration.
"Pro-Law Forces demand adherence to existing federal immigration laws."
Yes...it's interesting how the headlines reveal the stance of the newswriter. One has to wonder: why does the writer not understand the harmful affects of illegal immigration?
What grates about mainstream media coverage is that there is a derogatory message embedded in the typical headline. Whose country is it, anyway? Where has the rule of law gone? Has expediency overwhelmed our good judgement?
The Republican Party had better "get it" and "get it fast." The majority of the American people do not want illegal aliens getting into OUR country. Further, they want the laws enforced to keep the situation under control; it is now OUT of control.
There is absolutely no valid excuse for this. The longer we wait, the more our country will be flooded both with illegals with no sense of loyalty to a country which cannot run its own affairs (why should they?), and terrorists and spies who will find ways to kill us and will act on them. Of what use is ANY political party or government if they cannot/will not protect the country? Seal the borders now, Mr. Bush!
Poor ole Uncle Bob. lol ;)
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.