Skip to comments.Privately, Bush Says He Favors Citizenship (for Illegals)
Posted on 04/26/2006 5:20:12 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
President Bush generally favors plans to give millions of illegal immigrants a chance at U.S. citizenship without leaving the country, but does not want to be more publicly supportive because of opposition among conservative House Republicans, according to senators who attended a recent White House meeting.
Several officials familiar with the meeting also said Democrats protested radio commercials that blamed them for Republican-written legislation that passed the House and would make illegal immigrants vulnerable to felony charges.
Bush said he was unfamiliar with the ads, which were financed by the Republican National Committee, according to officials familiar with the discussions.
At another point, Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada and other members of his party pressed the president about their concern that any Senate-passed bill would be made unpalatable in final talks with the House.
Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat, said the lawmaker who would lead House negotiators, House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, had been "intractable" in negotiations on other high-profile bills in the past. Bush did not directly respond to the remark, officials said.
The Republican and Democratic officials who described the conversation did so Wednesday on condition of anonymity, saying they had not been authorized to disclose details.
Bush convened the session to give momentum to the drive for election-year immigration legislation, a contentious issue that has triggered large street demonstrations and produced divisions in both political parties. Senators of both parties emerged from the session praising the president's involvement and said the timetable was achievable.
"Yes, he thinks people should be given a path to citizenship," said Sen. Mel Martinez., R-Fla., a leading supporter of immigration legislation in the Senate.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Then the answer, I take it, is "No, we haven't secured our borders" and "employer arrests/fines have been reduced." And "Bush's budget scraps 9,790 border patrol agents," only allocating funds for the hiring of 210. Actions speak louder than words.
Having not answered by question, you give me some made-up conclusion.
Answer my question: We haven't made any arrests at the border since 9/11?
He didn't raise your taxes
Facts don't matter.
Turnabout is fair play. Answer mine first.
"We have secured our borders after 9/11?"
A Beattle's song I think.
Yea ... I think I've heard this song before
You know the last time I was in Vegas I stopped to buy gas a two separate gas stations, Neither station had an attendant that spoke English.
Plenty of people at this web site are working to make sure that happens.
Yep, the same folks sings it every year around election time.
What we need is another conservative crack down. Bush is the one who decided to side with Kennedy on illegals. He could have pushed for an enforcement first bill, but he wants amnesty.
You got that "right" Howlin..
Talk about an Invasion!
Where did all of these dopes come from? DU perhaps?
No wonder it's starting to smell!
Turnabout is fair play. Answer mine first. We have secured our borders after 9/11?
I simply said that the concentration of enforcement went from the work-site to the border. You have yet to acknowledge that. Instead you give me hyperbole in the form of a rhetorical question.
There you go. Mexicans pumping gas, a job that YOU won't do.
No One can "side" with Fat head Ted--
You go to go A-round him.
Maybe you can answer this: How many of them had overstayed their visas?
Just a touch.
Apparently they don't like to be contradicted.
"So are you now accusing President Bush of calling all law enforcement and telling them not to enforce the law? "
It's called 'catch and release' if you haven't noticed. It's also the inside policy regarding involvement of local police forces, that's why illegals aren't put in the slammer on traffic tickets, OHSHA violations, welfare rolls, lots of other little stuff. That's compassionate Bush at work, he could change a lot of that through executive order.
"Doesn't it all start at the border regardless where someone stands on the guest worker issue?"
The border is now diffuse. So, a fence is great, but you still need border patrols, employer enforcement, etc.
"Do you believe that an undocumented worker (definition) has a right to adjudication before being declared illegal (legal description)?"
No. If you don't have any documentation that you are legal (or hope of obtaining it), what is there to ajudicate?
"Does an undocumented worker have a right to adjudication if their defense is they are here legally?"
Not if they have zero documentation.
"Is it their responsibility to show they're here legally or a prosecutor's responsibility to show they're here illegally?"
It's their responsibility to show documentation. They are not citizens, the same rules don't apply. In practice, it isn't all that hard, if you barely speek English, you've got no papers, you can't site where your birthplace and birth certificate are, etc., etc. you are gone.
How about this question, say I'm an American who committed a crime, but refused to show any documentation. Under your scenario, undocumentation would have greater privileges than documentation, we'd need a new trial for every crook who claimed to be John Smith. In fact, that is the case now, but only for illegals. Why can't I tell the traffic cop I'm Jesus, give him a false addresss and skate indefinitely? The illegals do on a regular basis.
" I take it you won't vote for Bush ever again?"
I hate country club republicans almost as much as democrats.
A country club Republican probably gave you your job.
Where's that poll again?
The one with the 7% showing.
Well, gosh! That's why we have "sanctuary cities"
They are terribly blue but all hemmoraging red.
All but a couple of them.
Now, how many of these illegal aliens in this country came in under Clinton but were here on a legal temporary basis that overstayed and are still here?
"You know the last time I was in Vegas I stopped to buy gas a two separate gas stations, Neither station had an attendant that spoke English."
I often offer to drop off some of the people who believe illegal immigration is no big deal in one of the barrios and let them walk out, but so far no takers.
Question: Oh...We have secured our borders after 9/11?
Your "Answer" (which is a rhetorical question): we haven't made any arrests at the border since 9/11?
Facts presented: "We haven't secured our borders" and "employer arrests/fines have been reduced." And "Bush's budget scraps 9,790 border patrol agents," only allocating funds for the hiring of 210.
Opinion: Actions speak louder than words.
= Far from rhetorical.
"A country club Republican probably gave you your job."
No, actually they dicked me out of a few jobs, so now I'm self employed.
Maybe this is what the president is advocating because of how completely unrealistic it is to expect to deport millions of people (which would cost billions) who will only come back in a very short time.
Maybe, if you look at all the hateful placards carried by the illegal alien mobs, you'll realize this is bottom-line NOT about immigration -- those people demonstrating in the streets don't want jobs, they want our country. And I don't think they're inclined to want to be American citizens.
Maybe, if those illegal aliens who don't want to get on the path to citizenship can be identified, some other course of action can be formulated to deal with THEM.
This is one of the most complex issues I've ever seen. One thing is certain, nobody is going to be 100% happy with whatever course is followed. NOBODY. And I am sickened at the way so many people want to lay this whole mess at the feet of President Bush. I only WISH it were that simple. It is NOT.
Unfortunately for America, the answer to your question is: "Nobody knows!"
"Wow .. a little defensive aren't we"
I just don't normally take prisoners. If you want to discuss immigration, fine. But name calling or innuendo gets responded to.
But, Tancredo wanted to be inside the Beltway so much that he broke his own pledge to only serve three terms.
WOW!I have heard this"broke his pledge to only serve 3 terms" consistantly like forever.What is with you man about a broken promise?Did Tancredo personnally call you up and promise you he wouldn't run again?
Now you'll tell everybody you have never,never,never...broken a pledge.Go ahead let me hear it.So everybody can call you a liar Sinkspur.That's the most irrelevant issue I ever heard anyone to come up with against Tancredo.Looks like a majority of voters persuaded him to run and he felt he could do some good.I'd vote for him Today for President.
How do you think he stands now in popularity?One thing I've seen in this man....when he knows somethings RIGHT for America...he hangs on like a bulldog.
Great. I get back from the gym and see this wonderful headline. So, how are the anti-borders folks spinning this unsurprising revelation?
I'd say that is an almost guaranteed certainty. This issue has become so polarized that Congress will probably end up doing nothing but argue and point fingers.
When did I call you a name??
"if you barely speek English,"
he he, "I speek gud Engrish"
The spell checker is my friend.
I am very grouchy...but strangely I feel a little better now.
You:Oh...We have secured our borders after 9/11?
Me:We haven't made any arrests at the border since 9/11?
You gave me a rhetorical question. I responded with a rhetorical question.
My above statement still stands. If you wish to respond to it without asking a rhetorical question that doesn't logically follow from my statement -- I'm all ears.
Else the statement stands without you addressing it.
Can't keep track. We're prob'ly sexist, racist, xenophobic, hateful bubbas or something.
Wrong...Jim clearly states this forum IS NOT affiliated with ANY party.
A couple of weeks ago he posted a vanity saying that his purpose was to elect "Republicans" and defeat "Democrats". Maybe he meant that in a non-party way.
That is his personal belief...not his stated mission of the forum. Two different things.
Immediately after 9/11 was the perfect time to secure the borders, as part of the WOT. It was a missed opportunity.
The President and the Republicans are fortunate there have been no terrorist attacks due to the porous borders. If something does occur on his watch (I am not forgetting the human ramifications) due to the porous borders, it will severely hurt him and the Republican Party.
And it is going to hurt the Republican Party in November if nothing is done to secure the borders by then. That is crystal clear.