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 ...
Kind of difficult separate the ideas of the man from the site...but convenient I guess.
Agreed; no crystal balls needed.
"Wow, that is one of the most intelligent posts I've ever seen on Free Republic. I stand in awe of your finely honed logic"
[Something that will never be said about your posts]
That's your first post to me, the implication being I'm an idiot. Howlin and you started the cracks, without reference to immigration, and I am swift on the retribution. You have yet to respond to a single thing I've said on immigration.
ROFLMAO.
Well, I was wondering when the first Bushbot would show up and start maligning conservatives. Sounds like the half dozen of them or so on here are getting a little slower policing threads for anti-Bush sentiment with every bad decision el Presidente makes.
True Conservative: someone who can.
Real Conservative: someone who can think up twenty by noon and thinks a "true conservative" is a Bushbot.
Obviously you have nothing to contribute except cheap personal attacks.
Just conveying what is written:
Who runs Free Republic?
Free Republic, LLC is a non-commercial, limited liability company founded and operated by Jim Robinson, a private citizen of Fresno California.
Free Republic is not a for profit commercial enterprise in the sense of a traditional business selling a product or service at a profit for its shareholders. We sell no product or service. We have no clients, customers or employees. We do not accept paid advertising. Free Republic is not affiliated with any political party, group, news source, government agency or anyone else.
Free Republic is not a business, we are a political discussion forum supported by donations from our readers and participants. When and if our readers decide we are no longer needed or viable, we will close down shop and go away.
Free Republic operates on an approximate $260,000 annual budget (click for breakdown) which includes all equipment costs, bandwidth fees, consulting and labor costs, license fees, insurance, rents, office expenses, advertising, travel, professional fees, and taxes.
"Plenty of people at this web site are working to make sure that happens." No, plenty of people here yearn for a principled conservative that earns their trust and belief he will uphold the things about the country they revere, and in many cases, have fought and spilled blood for. Whistling past the graveyard, perhaps, but just maybe Lucy won't jerk the football away next time.
Name them.
Name the people here who are FOR open borders.
Can you link the rule that says we are FORCED to respond to you, period, much less discuss any one topic?
And don't discuss me again without pinging me.
Again .. I didn't call you a name
I just made an observation
It also has fewer calories then other sites, which doesn't change the actual comments and intentions, as stated by, the founder and operator.
You:Oh...We have secured our borders after 9/11?
Me:We haven't made any arrests at the border since 9/11?
You ask me a rhetorical question grounded in hyperbole that doesn't logically follow from my statement.
I respond in kind.
My statement remains unaddressed by you.
Now, the fact that Jim himself has declared his personal belief we need to elect more Republicans does not conflict with the mission statement.
Everyone with half a brain knows the only way, albeit not very effective as of late, to advance the conservative position is only through electing Republicans. It's hard work and will take more time but if we can get some real leaders again we can succeed.
Frankly, the pickings for 2008 are looking bleak.
Taste great!
As I said, I'll let my post #330 speak for itself. Thanks.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you were one and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the other non enforcement types posting in this thread were big supporters of hers.
Here's hoping they fail on amnesty like they failed on Miers and the principled conservatives will save the day again.
You just called a lot of Freepers half-wits. Now that IS against the posted rules.
The word "affiliated" has various meanings. How do you thing it is being used in the above statement?
I never made a public pledge to 625,000 people, like Tancredo did.
Tom Coburn of Oklahoma was the only congressman who actually kept that pledge.
Term limits are stupid, and people who make term limit pledges on their own are super-stupid.
"Name the people here who are FOR open borders."
Just read the posts of those who support President Bush's past and present open border policy.
Neither of you have anything to say on immigration, just a bunch of innuendo. So, goodbye
Not good enough and a false assetion and accustion.
Not one poster on this thread is FOR open borders.
Later dude!
No problem.
You:Oh...We have secured our borders after 9/11?
Me:We haven't made any arrests at the border since 9/11?
As I said:
You asked me a rhetorical question grounded in hyperbole that doesn't logically follow from my statement.
I responded in kind.
My statement remains unaddressed by you.
Thanks.
The only thing that can be done is to start replacing the liberal republicans with Tancredo republicans in the primaries in states where they have a chance, replace 'moderate' democrats with Tancredo-like conservative 3rd party that way the GOP does not gain power out of the democrat losses.
Bush doesn't have an open border policy.
Facts don't matter.
"Bush doesn't have an open border policy."
Allowing about a million illegal aliens a year to invade our country each year, during his entire term, sure doesn't sound like a secure border policy.
Yes, I don't recall seeing any open borders posters. But let's not leave any question about it for Prokopton.
All in favor of open borders please reply to this post.
(For bandwidth considerations, don't everybody respond at once)
You only have to listen to him speak on the issue of the border. His response is that family values do NOT stop at the Rio Grande.
Another response to a secure the border statement Bush replies with a "they just want to put bread on the table for their families"
And if that does not convince you he called the Minutemen "vigilantes" and the last I knew the Minutemen were not setting up their chairs in the immigration offices dictating which visas are good and which visas are not...they are watching the border!
ROTFLMAO!
Excellent. Absolutely excellent.
Allowing about a million illegal aliens a year to invade our country each year, during his entire term, sure doesn't sound like a secure border policy.
I'm not sure if one million is a correct figure.
I do know that CBP arrested 1.2 million illegal aliens at the border in FY2005.
That doesn't sound like an "open border". We should try to characterize the border situation without hyperbole.
Methinks thou protesteth too much.
There you go again with the facts.
I smell a sell out Rat coming big time.
These beltway pols are going to do what ever they want and hope that the voters are to stupid to remember come November how they were screwed by THEIR elected folks.
I hope everyone of these turds that vote for amnesty in any form get a snoot full of no votes come November.
Democrat politicians are lower than the sewer rats they muck dive with in that cesspool called the DNC.
These blind-folded, open border apologists will be in for a big surprise- after they regain their balance from the 'spinning' on the right/left and start swinging their sticks. It won't be candy, but communism- neatly wrapped in bite-sized pieces falling all over the place.
I gotta ask my association if we can approve bigger gates on my already 'gated' community.
Bush's CBP arrested 1.2 million illegal aliens at the border in FY2005.
Bush didn't call the Minutemen vigilantes.
Bush doesn't have an open border policy.
Methinks thou posts falsehoods, so I guess we're even.
Obviously 1.2 million was not enough. LOL
Are they still waiting for their day in court?
It won't stop them from making it up
And the point of repeating yourself is for....your own reading amusement? To see yourself in print? I'm at a loss, otherwise, as repeating your opinions doesn't make more true your unsubstantiated opinion that "the reason employer enforcement/arrests decreased is because border enforcement funding increased."
The facts I've posted contradict your opinions.
The point of this article: "Bush favors bestowing citizenship upon illegals." This, I said (in an earlier post), comes as no surprise. The reason? FACT 1: he hasn't secured the borders, FACT 2: he has slashed the budget for Border Patrol Agents, and FACT 3: employer arrests have decreased during his term.
And because actions really do speak louder than words, I am not surprised by the statements in this article.
Now, if you have evidence that the facts I've posted are incorrect, please feel free to post it and I'll read it. Otherwise, your unsubstantiated opinion/conclusion as to why employer arrests/enforcement has decreased under his presidency is just that, unsubstantiated opinion.
Correct!
Facts don't matter.
To say it's the federal government's job to protect the border and give an utter and complete pass to the state governments who are causing the problem, is BS.
If I lived in California the first thing I'd be trying to change is the local and state laws that facilitate the illegals. Would they be coming to California in such numbers if:
- the could not qualify for any government benefits
- if they had to produce proof of citizenship for any government action and failing so would be arrested and turned over to the INS
- If their children were not allowed to go to school
- If they were denied any medical care beyond emergency room treatment accompanying with a call to the INS.
- If they had to provide proof of citizenship to vote, register vehicles, etc.
California makes it very attractive to an illegal...and we blame the President for that.
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.