Posted on 11/10/2004 12:51:19 PM PST by VU4G10
(Washington, DC—November 10, 2004) It wasn't quite "Read my lips," but in the last presidential debate in Arizona, George W. Bush clearly stated that he would not support amnesty for illegal aliens. One week after being narrowly returned to office, the president has reneged on that pledge. Bush has dispatched Secretary of State Colin Powell to Mexico City to open discussions with the Mexican government about the size and scope of amnesty for illegal immigrants and for a massive new guest worker program.
"President Bush and Karl Rove have seemingly missed the message of their own, and the Republican Party's, success at the polls last week," said Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). "In spite of a poor record on jobs, further erosion of the middle class, and staggering budget deficits, the people returned the GOP to office because they believed that the Republican Party was more in tune with them on values and respect for the law. One of those gut issues that led voters to ignore the administration's poor record in other areas was the belief that Bush and the Republicans would enforce laws against illegal immigration, not reward illegal immigrants and auction off every job in America to the lowest bidder."
The immigration plan being dusted off in Washington and Mexico City is essentially the same one the administration introduced last January, which proved to be so wildly unpopular among voters that they were forced to shelve it. "Who is the president seeking to reward by reintroducing his amnesty/guest worker proposal?" asked Stein. "Not middle class workers who made it very clear that they are feeling squeezed. Not the millions of families who have lost their health insurance benefits because their employers no longer feel that it is necessary to offer such benefits to attract American workers. Not Hispanic voters, whom polls indicate do not consider this to be high priority and who voted in significant numbers in favor of an Arizona ballot measure that bars illegal aliens from receiving most public benefits.
"The only interest group, besides the estimated 10 to 12 million illegal aliens and their families who could be in line for legal U.S. residency, are cheap labor employers who have come to believe that it is their right to have workers who will work at whatever wages they wish to pay," Stein said.
The latest White House announcement will touch off yet another surge in illegal immigration and further compromise homeland security, predicted FAIR. Last January, when the president first proposed this plan, the U.S. Border Patrol reported a marked increase in the number of people attempting to enter the U.S. illegally in order to benefit from the proposed amnesty. "Aside from betraying the interests of millions of people who voted for him because they believed the president shared their core values, this irresponsible renewal of talk of amnesty will betray those who voted for him because they believed the Republicans were the party that could be entrusted to protect homeland security. You cannot have homeland security and chaos at the border. You cannot have homeland security while granting amnesty to millions of people with only minimal background checks. And you certainly cannot have amnesty and unlimited guest workers, and preserve a solid middle class," asserted Stein.
Fair enough. Why doesn't he implement them first?
...and juries, by and large, refuse to do that.
Do you have examples of that?
How?
Juries routinely refuse to convict in these cases.
You mean there is someplace where houses are not built by illegals?
Go back and review what happened right after the 1986 amnesty. The present stringent penalties (the ones never employed) were enacted as part of that amnesty. US Attorneys filed cases and held trials.
And juries refused to convict.
Of course it is. Some of these neocons and rhino, "party before country" people actually had the balls to urge people not to discuss this epic invasion before the election, telling them, "This is not the time for this". This is one of the most pathetic things I have ever witnessed.
If Clinton were here doing this today, or even suggesting this, the "party before country" sell-outs would be in melt down, right here, right now.....
This is about the most disgusting thing imaginable.
But on the plus side, our tax subsidies to illegals did help him get a cheaper house.
There's nothing conservative about supporting those who are flouting the laws like they're doing, they should be thrown in jail.
It's why US Attorneys do not attempt to prosecute: they know that the defendants will be acquitted. US Attorneys and their offices are evaluated on the number of guilty verdicts they get on those cases that go to trial. If juries were willing to convict, you'd see every possible case of hiring illegal aliens being charged and tried.
You are all the same...throw up some pie-in-the-sky BS plan in the air, and believe that if you click the heels on your ruby slippers twice, it will come true.
They are not going to risk not being allowed back in the US...period. Open your eyes.
I agree 100% with all three of those proposals.
IMO They should have already been implemented.
The people in this country lack the will to round up terrorists in another country, but these idiots in here think we're going to round up ten million people on our own soil.
Can you provide a link to jury trials where employers were tried for an offence related to employment of illegal aliens and were acquited? I'll be shocked if there are more than two or three over the entire ten year or so period throughly covered by google indexing.
The real story is that they almost always get slap on the wrist fines and there is no trial. Pass a law with reasonable employer sanctions -- say, a month in prison for a first offence -- and jurors will usually convict. And your average office manager for a small business is NOT going to want to risk that month locked up in prison with you know what kinds of people. This would be a terrific deterent even if there were a fair number of acquitals, which I question.
A lot of murderers get acquited, but you don't want prosecutors to ignore that also, do you?
Well, then we shall agree to agree. Nice when that happens here.
We all survived Reagan doing it.
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.