Skip to comments.MITT MIFFS W ON BORDERS (Bush exasperated with Romney's hard-line immigration stance)
Posted on 02/02/2008 12:44:12 PM PST by Liz
President Bush has maintained neutrality but privately expresses exasperation with Romney's hard-line stance on immigration......Bush is upset Romney changed his position at the expense of the president's immigration reform. Bush and McCain are not close, but he's grateful for McCain's support on Iraq and immigration.
Florida Gov. Crist's unexpected late endorsement, which helped propel McCain to victory, was an unpleasant surprise to state Republican leaders. Crist had said he was not making an endorsement after shunning Giuliani's courtship and suggested that they also stay neutral. His support for McCain irked Republican activists who generally would have preferred former Romney. Romney carried heavily Republican Collier and Lee counties in SW Florida by substantial margins.....voters McCain will have to win over if nominated.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
The presence of Juan Hernandez in the background of the McCain campaign tells us that John McCain is as weak on border security now as he ever was. Dr. Juan Hernandez, a dual citizen of the US and Mexico, and past member of Vicente Foxs Mexican government.....Hernandez is as open borders as you can get.
McCain should explain to voters/taxpayers Arizona's federal and state funding for the facilitation of border-crossing via the Arizona-Mexico Commission, and the Border Infrastructure Project implemented in collaboration with federal, state and local government agencies........that's OUR tax dollars. FROM THE ARIZONA-MEXICO COMMISSION WEB SITE http://www.azmc.org/ ---SNIP--
THIS IS WHAT McCAIN SUPPORTS
Amnesty Will Cost U.S. Taxpayers at Least $2.6 Trillion
Heritage Foundation | June 6, 2007 | Robert Rector
EXCERPT McCain is for S.1348, the Senate amnesty bill that was recently defeated. S.1348 would grant amnesty to nearly all illegal immigrants currently in the United States. Overall, the net cost to taxpayers is likely to be at least $2.6 trillion. Illegal immigrants generally have very low education levels. 61 percent of illegal immigrant adults lack a high school diploma. Illegal immigrants have a poverty level that is roughly twice that of native-born Americans.
The Senate's bill would offer amnesty and a path to citizenship to 12 to 12.5 million illegals currently in the U.S. In addition, its lax evidentiary standards would encourage millions more to apply for amnesty fraudulently. Because there is no numeric limit on the number of amnesties that could be granted under the bill, the actual numbers who would receive amnesty under the bill could be far higher.
Eligibility for government benefits means that the former illegal immigrant or his family members obtains the same benefits as a U.S. citizen would have. Children born within the United States to illegal immigrants, including Z visa holders, are potentially eligible for all welfare benefits from the moment of birth through the reat of their lives. In addition, adult Z visa holders and their foreign-born children will be eligible for medical care under the Medicaid Disproportionate Share Program. Z visa holders will be given lawful Social Security numbers which makes them eligible for two refundable tax credits: The Earned Income Tax Credit and the Additional Child Tax Credit. These credits provides cash welfare assistance...
Irrespective of employment history, amnesty recipients will become eligible for 60 different federal welfare programs five years after receiving legal permanent residence. When the amnesty recipients reach retirement age, total benefits received will OUTSTRIP TAXES PAID BY ROUGHLY SEVEN TO ONE. (Excerpt) Read more at heritage.org
AMNESTY IS FOREVER
The Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) bill [S. 2611] that passed in the Senate in 2006 with the support of Presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain contained provisions that would have legalized the status of the overwhelming majority of the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country, i.e., amnesty, and provided them with a path to citizenship. The House never voted on the bill and it died.
Undaunted, in 2007 Senators McCain and Kennedy together with a small group of other senators circumvented the normal committee debate process and introduced directly into the Senate for a vote another CIR bill [S. 1348] that actually expanded the number of illegal aliens who would be rewarded with amnesty beyond the 2006 bill. They would be allowed to stay and work here after meeting certain conditions, e.g., pay fines, learn to speak English, understand American civics, etc., that mirrored similar provisions contained in the 1986 amnesty bill. And, as was the case in 1986, the illegal aliens would be offered a path to citizenship. The major difference is that President Reagan called the 1986 bill what it was, a one-time amnesty. The proponents of the proposed 2007 McCain-Kennedy CIR bill denied, and continue to deny, that their bill is amnesty.
The American people were not fooled by the Orwellian use of language to disguise what was being proposed. Despite strong-arm tactics to limit debate and amendments and to force a hurried vote, the 2007 CIR bill was defeated procedurally due to an unprecedented [and huge] public outcry that clearly had an effect on senators votes. The American people have spoken, but Presidential candidates Clinton, Obama, Edwards, McCain, Giuliani, and Huckabee still call for legalizing the status of most of the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens, i.e., amnesty, which would be an unmitigated disaster for this country.
The irrevocable decision to legalize the status of the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens would have direct and immediate consequences on the number of additional LEGAL immigrants who will be authorized entry as a result of this change of status. Robert Rector of The Heritage Foundation estimated that the 2006 CIR bill would have resulted in an additional 66 million legal immigrants over the next 20 years due to existing chain migration policies that allow legal permanent residents to sponsor family members for entry as part of family reunification. And the figure of 66 million is based on the conservative Census Bureau estimate of 11.9 million illegal aliens, and does not include the current annual intake of over a million legal immigrants. The numbers are staggering.
In analyzing the 2007 CIR bill, Rector stated, The main fiscal impact of S. 1348 will occur through two mechanisms: (1) the grant of amnesty, with accompanying access to Social Security, Medicare and welfare benefits, to 12 million illegal immigrants who are overwhelmingly low skilled; and (2) a dramatic increase in chain immigration, which will also be predominantly low skilled.
The bottom line is that high school dropouts are extremely expensive to U.S. taxpayers. It does not matter whether the dropout comes from Ohio, Tennessee, or Mexico. It does matter that the Senate immigration bill would increase the future flow of poorly educated immigrants into the U.S. and grant amnesty and access to government benefits to millions of poorly educated illegal aliens already here. Such legislation would inevitably impose huge costs on U.S. taxpayers. Heritage research has concluded that the cost of amnesty alone will be $2.6 trillion once the amnesty recipients reach retirement age.
In 1986 the U.S. Government estimated that one million people would apply for amnesty. The number turned out to be 2.7 million. If the current number of illegal aliens is closer to the 2005 Bear-Stearns report estimate of 20 million, the demographic and economic impact of amnesty will be exponentially greater than that estimated for an illegal alien population of 12 million. Without having reliable data on how many illegal aliens are in the country, it would be totally irresponsible to pass legislation that would grant legal status to untold millions regardless of the numbers. It is not the way to make good public policy.
President Reagans Attorney General, Ed Meese, stated, The lesson from the 1986 experience is that such an amnesty did not solve the problem. There was extensive document fraud, and the number of people applying for amnesty far exceeded projections. And there was a failure of political will to enforce new laws against employers. After a brief slowdown, illegal immigration returned to high levels and continued unabated, forming the nucleus of todays large population of illegal aliens. So here we are, 20 years later, having much the same debate and being offered much the same deal.
Amnesty has a corrosive effect on the rule of law and is grossly unfair to the millions who have followed the rules and are waiting their turn overseas to enter legally. What kind of message does amnesty send to them and the many millions more who would like to enter the United States? Rewarding those who have entered our country illegally and broken our laws in multiple ways, e.g., ID theft, tax evasion, misuse of social security numbers, etc., will just encourage more people to enter our country illegally so they can take advantage of the next amnesty.
In addition to the huge costs associated with amnesty, there are national security concerns. An amnesty will make it easier for alien terrorists to operate in the United States by allowing them to fraudulently create secure IDs with ease. We would be conferring blanket legal status to millions of unknown and unknowable persons, thereby facilitating the movement and access of terrorists who entered the country illegally.
With a stroke of a pen, the legalization of the status of 12 to 20 million illegal aliens plus the tens of millions more who will join them later legallywill have a profound and negative impact on this country for many generations to come. The efforts of state and local governments to control and limit the costs associated with illegal immigration would be undone overnight. And the burden on the taxpayer will increase. Amnesty is not an action that can be taken lightly or be reversed. Amnesty is forever.
Very interesting; Senator Sessions has been a stalwart objector to illegals and amnesty.
Here are the Senators who voted against the Cornyn Amendment (would have established a permanent bar for gang members, terrorists, and other criminals looking to snag a shamnesty visa). Republicans underlined:
Bush's losses have come due to the conservative base: Harriet Miers, Dubai Ports and immigration "reform".
So, I'm left with the thought that Bush is as dumb and clueless as the lefties claim, but the lefties are even dumber and more stupid than Bush, which allows Bush to still out maneuver the lefties.
Here's the Cluebat Mr President, there is one reason why Mitt Romney holds his position on immigration: It's what the vast majority of the American People demand. You tried in '06 and in '07 and the Senate tried again in '07 and you ALL failed with your amnesty bill. People want immigration laws enforced, not a Clintonian response to his campaign corruption by promoting Campaign Finance "Reform". Mr Bush, you don't enforce current immigration laws, why should anyone believe you will enforce the NEW laws. Oh, BTW, secure the friggin' border, before you get rightfully blamed for a terrorist attack launched across the border.
Yup. How dare Romney want our immigration laws enforced?
Bush can take his religous compassion and shove where the sun doesn’t shine.
What is more unbelievable are the people who continue to worship at the alter of Bush.
In the months following 9/11, I really loved this guy. Now I think that President Bush needs to STFU, finish out his lamebrain term, go the hell back to Crawford and go fishing with his equally pusillanimous old man.
It's people like you that will lose America for us. Thanks....
Exactly how I feel.
Um, no. That is being done courtesy of the GOP, the RINO's, and those who support them.
good post potlatch!
Guy is scary.
Mitt is not a SMANESTY guy.
Well, not this week anyway...
|Is that so? Care to elaborate or was that just a drive by?
I had to chuckle at your emotional outburst since I served 20+ years as an Army officer and was stationed in Germany when the Berlin Wall came down.
Get a clue. I'm not running for office and I've lived and advocated the only thing that will ever save America: conservative values. If America is lost its because a bunch of idiotic fools have voted for candidates who have no core conservative convictions who will sell us out over and over again. Their names be Romney, McCain and Huckabee.
A “lol’s” what it’s for nic!! Thanks
What did he pledge to do with the 20 million illegals in the country?
Huckabee just signed Jeff Sessions immigration pledge today
Sooo..Where’s the thread on it ...?????
Will conservatives who love this country and want to preserve it wake up too late to save it.........................................?
THIS is indeed the question of the day!!!
Oooohh... Lookie! Huckabee flip-flops and signs Sessions pledge.
TUSCALOOSA, ALA. — Mike Huckabee has changed his mind and will sign an Alabama senators immigration pledge for presidential candidates - an effort to defeat the McCain-Kennedy proposal in the U.S. Senate.
Here’s aquestion for you
If abortion is morally wrong, shouldn’t it be discouraged ????
I do know that you have served our country in the military....thank you for that. But that makes it more astounding to me that you would not support Romney over McCain...those are our choices. McCain is the flip-flopper, btw. Like Ann Coulter said, McCain is so tough on terrorists, but he’s against pouring water down their noses.
Um, yes, you are losing our country for us if you are supporting open-border-McCain over Romney.
We’re losing our country is you support EITHER McRino or multiple choice Romney.
OK, who are you supporting? Oh, pleeeze don’t say Ron Paul!
McCain could stand to lose a few pounds and spend a little time in the sun.
No candidate is good on immigration. McCain ranks at the bottom. I put Huckabee as next worse.
Huckabee on Immigration:
2006 - Supported President Bush’s immigration plan and claimed that opposition to Bush’s proposal was driven by “racism or nativism” and that it wasn’t amnesty. (Ralph Hallow, “Huckabee ‘Serious’ About Presidency,” Washington Times, 5/17/06)
2007 - Wrote in his 2007 book that implementing strict enforcement of immigration laws “would be sheer folly” and that it made sense to give “those here illegally a process through which they pay a reasonable fine in admission of their guilt for the past infraction of violating our border laws and agree to adhere to a pathway toward legal status and citizenship.” (Mike Huckabee, From Hope to Higher Ground, 2007, p. 117-118)
Championed an effort in Arkansas to give in-state tuition at state colleges and taxpayer-funded scholarships to illegal immigrants, similar to the DREAM Act proposal at the federal level. (Laura Kellams, “Senators research U.S. law on aliens,” Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 1/27/05)
When Republican state senators in Arkansas proposed legislation modeled after Arizona’s Proposition 200 [to require proof of citizenship for voting and public benefits], “Huckabee described it as ‘inflammatory ... race-baiting ... demagoguery.’ He said the bill, which seeks to forbid public assistance and voting rights to illegal immigrants, ‘inflames those who are racist and bigots and makes them think there’s a real problem. But there’s not.’” (Governor says anti-illegals measure could scare off companies like Toyota,” A ssociated Press, 2/3/05)
Opposed a raid on illegal immigrants in an Arkansas poultry plant even though calls to his office were “about 1,000 to one” against his stance. (Melissa Nelson, “Huckabee Risks Political Fortunes To Denounce Immigration Raid,” Associated Press, 8/5/05)
Helped lead the effort to open a Mexican Consulate in Little Rock to issue Matricula Consular cards to Mexicans living in the U.S. (including those in the U.S. illegally). Many banks, including some in Arkansas, accept the card as a valid form of identification. (Jon Gambrell, “Ark. Candidates Criticize Mexican Matricula Cards,” AP, 10/18/06)
|First of all, I don't support McCain or Romney. And second, you have to be kidding. Why on God's green Earth would I, as a veteran, ever consider Romney (the lying, flip-flopping, gay-loving, gun-grabbing, culture of death-advocating former governor of Massachusetts) over anyone (except a Democrat)? I mean look at his record:
My support is now with Ron Paul. He’s the most conservative one left standing after my first two choices left the race, that being 1) Tom Tancredo and 2) Duncan Hunter.
I’ll never pull the lever
for a RINO.
At least Ron Paul has a history of supporting limited government, is against the NAU, against abortion, is in favor of denying citizenship to illegals’ offspring, and is a strict Constitutionist. The same cannot be said of McRino or Romney.
Your humor is, at times, desperately needed on threads. : )
[Your humor is, at times, desperately needed on threads. : )]
Thank you nic, and it ‘makes a point’ too!
Thank you devolve.
I wish it weren't such a full link. I would love to post it all. But, those who click the link will find some very relevant facts, there.
Good Lord he looks like something outta the movie The Day After.
Mitt will go along with whoever he is fronting for and if that is the global community; we will see worse.
First things first! — Build The Fence!!
Even Liberal Jaun McClinton has gotten the message!
But McCain told Russert he would still sign McCain-Kennedy if(when) it came to his desk as POTUS - if he ever, God forbid, gets the chance.
Gosh Mr. President. No need to worry. Romney never means what he says.
The press release is on Huckabee’s website. It definitely says “No Amnesty”. Huckabee is coming up on Fox around 4:30 p.m. CST so maybe he’ll tell more then.
I guess it hasn’t hit the news cycle yet because I can’t find it anywhere but on his website.
Romney claims in his TV ad that he put state troopers on the trail of illegals in his state. But he didn't do so until he had less than a month left in his term. He was already considering running for president, and the new governor-elect was expected to rescind the arrangement.
Romney began talking about giving troopers the power to make arrests on immigration charges earlier in 2006, but he didn't sign an agreement with the federal government--a necessary condition for that authority to be granted-- until Dec. 13, 2006.
Source: FactCheck.org: AdWatch of 2007 campaign ad, "Immigration" Nov 9, 2007