Posted on 02/01/2006 12:04:11 PM PST by Icelander
Advocates on both sides of the immigration debate said President Bush missed an opportunity in his State of the Union address Tuesday night to direct Congress on immigration reform, weeks before Senate lawmakers begin to tackle the divisive issue.
Breezing by the issue in just a few sentences, Bush endorsed a program that would allow foreigners to work temporarily in this country, saying the nation needs orderly and secure borders but that the economy couldn't function without immigrants.
His brief mention drew a disappointed rebuke from Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., who has led an effort to tighten the nation's borders and enforce immigration laws.
Bush could have "broken the Washington stalemate and secured the most significant immigration reform in a decade," Tancredo said.
Angela Kelley, deputy director of the pro-immigrant National Immigration Forum, also said Bush fell short. "It's really important for him to step up and provide some leadership on this issue," she said.
Senators are expected to take up immigration legislation in the coming weeks.
Immigration has featured heavily in Bush's State of the Union speeches in past years. But with his own party deeply divided over the issue, he devoted just over a paragraph to the subject Tuesday.
Still several lawmakers praised Bush.
Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, said he was pleased Bush "called for an immigration system that deals with the influx of illegal immigrants realistically. Now it's time for both the House and the Senate to rise to the president's challenge and enact meaningful, comprehensive immigration reform."
How to deal with the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country now _ and the thousands crossing the border each year _ has divided Congress and is becoming an increasingly volatile issue at the state and local level.
Even non-border states are wrestling with how to provide government services, such as health care, to illegal immigrants and whether to restrict drivers' licenses and withhold benefits to illegal workers.
Jennifer Allen, who directs the Border Action Network, based in Tucson, Ariz., said immigrants she works with are watching anxiously as Congress talks about building walls at the Mexican border and increasing the penalties for being in the country illegally.
She and other advocates are loudly calling for Congress to fix the nation's troubled immigration system.
This summer, Democratic Govs. Bill Richardson of New Mexico and Janet Napolitano, of Arizona declared a state of emergency in their border counties to free up money for immigration-related needs.
Richardson said Bush's brief mention in the State of the Union was a signal the White House would not make it a major issue in the coming months.
"The message I received is that on immigration, we're going to leave the burden on the states like New Mexico and Arizona, and it's sort of like 'You're on your own,'" Richardson said.
In the Senate, Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., John Cornyn, R-Texas, and John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., have proposed programs that regulate when and how immigrants can come to the U.S.
Kyl said Tuesday that he would have liked to hear more from Bush about immigration, but he was glad "the key elements were there" in his speech.
"It is a very serious problem for Arizona," Kyl said. "I think everyone in the Senate wants to get something done ... whether the president mentions it or not."
Exactly. It's all about greed and short term profits for the Quislings.
The rest of us will pay and pay and pay for the illegals.
We have been sold down the river.......albeit at a bargain price !
You noticed that too.
YEs, the President acts like a leftist when it comes to this issue. Like when he says "jobs Americans won't do" (at illegal slave labor wages).
That fence could be our country's salvation, but I'm afraid you're right. It WOULD work so they're against it. Bush has had 5 years to do something about our open borders...5 years and we're still waiting. I would have sworn after 9-11 our borders would have been shut down tighter than brick $hithouse. We're still waiting. *sigh*
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c109query.html
Select search by number
Enter in s1438
Personally, I would rather import lettuce then cheap labor that I get taxed to subsidize.
I American farmers can't figure out how to run their farms without breaking the law then it is time for them to go out of business and sell their land to somebody who can.
Thanks Moe
Migrant farm workers have been a part of agriculture as far back as I can remember ( into the 50's at least).
I don't see a problem with 'guest workers' as long as it's regulated.
Something along the lines of post #16.
In the meantime stop the illegal immigration.
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,
1. The act of invading; the act of encroaching upon the rights or possessions of another; encroachment; trespass.
Incarceration? Well, we know how expensive that is -- even if the government decided to use the incarcerated illegals in chain gangs that just happened to be part of construction crews and produce picking crews. And again, Mexico would protest. It could even decide to divert oil to China (nice of us to have built the Panama Canal).
To date, the cheapest solution is repatriation, usually by bus.
The one form of punishment that actually generates income is to fine the businesses that knowingly use illegal labor. But as already discussed on this thread, it's all a game.
So do I. He has the authority granted to him to shut this mess down in a heartbeat, but......
If terrorists stroll over a border that is still wide open years after 9-11, Bush should and would be impeached for gross dereliction of his sworn duty.
There's a free-market solution, and it's actually quite simple: privatize all land in the United States. The land-owner has the right to shoot trespassers. After that, whose property is the body? Obviously, the original owner no longer can claim it; therefore unless a will clearly bequeathes it to somebody, it is abandoned property.
The land-owner has first dibs, since its on his land, and can do what he wants with it. Presumably, a market for these raw materials will exist; perhaps a fertilizer or animal-feed company. Soylent green, maybe. Instead of a state-centric disposal problem, we have a free-market solution that produces benefits and generates wealth.
the cheapest solution is repatriation
Don't forget the need for a deterrent. Repatriation after public flogging, maybe. Sure, that's fine with me as well.
There is no such thing. It is a false concept invented and labeled by Karl Rove to sucker the masses into accepting another amnesty scam. It is, in fact, a bald-faced lie. I refuse to drink the Kool-Aid. Seal the border, secure the nation, and then and only then can we talk about who we're going to allow in and for how long we're going to allow them. Until the border is under control, it is all just a bunch of useless talk designed to mislead the nation into accepting another amnesty and dissolution of our national sovereignty.
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.