Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
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.
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
Care to point out our constitutional obligation to do so?
Needless to say, that poem is not part of the constitution or any founding document. Wisely, we disregarded it for a good part of our history.
He said "moral" obligation.
Please don't point a gun at me and claim your business needs the money.
Do you believe we have a moral obligation to let all the world's poor move here, and then to pay for all the usual social services we give to poor people (like free education)?
Take your complaint up with the administration.
LOL! It would be a more convincing plan if the President actually expelled all of the illegal aliens who've not only been apprehended, but who have also lost their deportation hearings. More than 200,000 of them have absconded during the President's first term.
The ones you know must not have heard about California, where they get everything free, at our expense.
I'm glad he has his priorities straight.
The illegal alien apologists here don't realize that fact. Thanks for posting it.
For those difficult questions, try calling 1-800 IAM-STUPID
Don't forget this either the children born in these families are automatically citizens and have full rights and priveleges. Taxpayers will also pick up this tab aswell for this outrage "Where is the outrage NOW!"
And Janet Reno had US Attorneys zealously bring zero-chance-of-conviction cases against firearms dealers for the slightest technical violations of federal law. Guess what? Bringing many cases before the court that have zero chance of winning gets me and thee sanctioned. You wish to reward behavior that gets other attorneys disbarred.
BTW...after the second or third time through the process, the defendant will have an extraordinarily good case against the federal government for harrassment, and the judge will likely sanction the US government for bringing the cases--said sanctions consisting of paying the defendant's legal fees. That's what wound up happening to Reno's effort, and it's what killed it.
And you point back twenty years for some possible evidence. You cannot extrapolate what a jury would do today based on what happened two decades ago.
Actually, you can. Among other things, there are jury consultants who poll the public about attitudes towards specific laws and the likelihood of generating convictions in cases pertaining to those laws.
First, I don't see anything in Bush's plan calling for the expulsion of those who don't work.
Second, just because a man works doesn't mean he isn't a drag on society. The working poor in this coutnry are in fact a net fiscal drain. They pay very little in the way of taxes thanks to our progressive tax code, yet they consume more in government services. Importing more poor people, therefore, makes no sense.
And please spare me the idiotic claim that a eugenics policy would follow from my argument. You can be against importing more poor people while at the same time favor helping poor people who are US citizens.
If you want in but don't want a guest worker visa and just want to come here and freeload, then you are not welcome. But if you are here to work legally and pay all your taxes, then come on in and leave when you are done.
The working poor do freeload, even if they work hard. That's why they vote for Democrats in droves.
President Bush Proposes New Temporary Worker ProgramParticipants who do not remain employed, who do not follow the rules of the program, or who break the law will not be eligible for continued participation and will be required to return to their home.
Oh yes, and they'll just meekly go home when they can't legally stay anymore.
Get real. If people without legal status are unwilling to leave now, what makes you think they'll be willing to leave after this quasi-amensty passes?
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.