HOME/ABOUT  Prayer  SCOTUS  ProLife  BangList  Aliens  StatesRights  ConventionOfStates  WOT  HomosexualAgenda  GlobalWarming  Corruption  Taxes  Congress  Fraud  MediaBias  GovtAbuse  Tyranny  Obama  ObamaCare  Elections  Polls  Debates  Trump  Cruz  Kasich  OPSEC  Benghazi  InfoSec  BigBrother  IRS  Scandals  TalkRadio  TeaParty  FreeperBookClub  HTMLSandbox  FReeperEd  FReepathon  CopyrightList  Copyright/DMCA Notice 

Please keep those donations coming in, folks. Our 2nd quarter FReepathon is off to a great start and we have a chance of getting 'er done early! Thank you all very much!!

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $39,184
Woo hoo!! And the first 44% is in!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by AzJohn

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • CIA report reveals U.S. knew Saudi-backed charities tied to terrorism in 1996

    07/31/2004 7:19:47 PM PDT · 44 of 52
    AzJohn to Sabertooth
    However, the 2000 date of the meeting between Candidate Bush, Khaled Saffuri, and Abdurahman Alamoudi doesn't get those in charge of Bush's Muslim Outreach off the hook.

    I agree with your larger point here. Candidate Bush meeting with these guys pre-9/11 doesn't bother me as much as President Bush meeting with them post-9/11, but it's a big mistake either way.

  • CIA report reveals U.S. knew Saudi-backed charities tied to terrorism in 1996

    07/31/2004 5:13:27 PM PDT · 21 of 52
    AzJohn to Sabertooth
    the picture of President Bush with Saffuri and Alamoudi was taken at a meeting in July of 2002...

    I think the 2002 date is probably a typo. I found this reference to a July, 2000 meeting. And if you look at the wording of the paragraph you cite, a 2002 date doesn't make sense.

  • ***Kerry for Senate 1984 Document: Kerry on Defense***

    02/21/2004 11:38:50 AM PST · 114 of 343
    AzJohn to maggiefluffs
    Wow, I didn't see that link. Nice catch! Although the memo is from his campaign manager and not Kerry himself, it certainly tells you something about the mindset of his organization in those days.
  • ***Kerry for Senate 1984 Document: Kerry on Defense***

    02/21/2004 11:07:02 AM PST · 62 of 343
    AzJohn to diotima
    Kerry's story on this is that he has learned from his mistakes and has subsequently had a responsible record on national defense. From the Boston Globe, June 19, 2003:

    In his zeal to keep pace with Shannon's leftward drift on disarmament, Kerry supported cancellation of a host of weapons systems that have become the basis of US military might -- the high-tech munitions and delivery systems on display to the world as they leveled the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in a matter of weeks.

    These weapons became conversation topics at American dinner tables during the Iraq war, but candidate Kerry in 1984 said he would have voted to cancel many of them -- the B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth bomber, AH-64 Apache helicopter, Patriot missile, the F-15, F-14A and F-14D jets, the AV-8B Harrier jet, the Aegis air-defense cruiser, and the Trident missile system.

    He also advocated reductions in many other systems, such as the M1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Tomahawk cruise missile, and the F-16 jet.

    In retrospect, Kerry said some of his positions in those days were "ill-advised, and I think some of them are stupid in the context of the world we find ourselves in right now and the things that I've learned since then."

    But he defended his opposition at the time to the MX missile, the "Star Wars" strategic defense initiative, and some other programs.

    "Some of this stuff was ahead of its time. Some was not as well thought out as it might be," Kerry said of his campaign posture then. "I'm not ashamed of that. I was [40] years old, running for the United States Senate for the first time . . . and I'm sure that some of it was driven at the time by the nature of the beast I was fighting politically.

    Politicians do sometimes need to change their mind on issues. But Kerry was 40 years old when he took these positions, not a kid, and he also had the benefit of all the same military experience he touts as an asset today. It's also troubling, to say the least, that he would adopt such a marked anti-defense posture based on political considerations in Massachusetts.

  • GOP senators, officials back alien proposal

    02/15/2004 11:08:01 AM PST · 256 of 292
    AzJohn to WhiteChristianCons
    But the noun American is used exclusively to denote American citizens. So, a citizen of Mexico is known as a Mexican, not an American. Likewise a citizen of Canada is known as a Canadian, not an American.

    According to the dictionary definition, the Canadian and Mexican could refer to themselves as Americans in the generic sense that they live in this hemisphere. But yes, we're the only country that can call ourselves that, at least according to Merriam-Webster.

  • False accusation leads to tragedy (A question for the forum)

    02/15/2004 10:54:07 AM PST · 146 of 224
    AzJohn to templar
    Is that a point of law?

    It's an assertion on my part, I'll admit. It just doesn't seem reasonable to me that you could revoke their visa because of this. I have no idea what the law is as far as revoking the visas of minor children.

    Since I'm confessing here, I should also point out that the kid was actually described in the article as a middle school student (I misread the high school reference in the article). Of course that makes it seem even less reasonable to me that you could deport someone over this.

  • GOP senators, officials back alien proposal

    02/15/2004 10:46:42 AM PST · 254 of 292
    AzJohn to ClintonBeGone
    John, the very definition you posted contradicts this statement of yours.

    Not at all. In the definition I posted meaning #3 is "a citizen of the U.S.". That's the sense in which most on the thread have used the word "American".

  • False accusation leads to tragedy (A question for the forum)

    02/15/2004 9:34:48 AM PST · 119 of 224
    AzJohn to skip2myloo
    In the press these days, how can you tell the difference ??

    The newspaper may have also used the term "immigrant" if they did not know what the family's legal status was. Although if they are from India, the chances are pretty good that they are here legally.

    What basis would there be for sending the family back home? You can't revoke someone's visa because they have a teenager who lies.

  • False accusation leads to tragedy (A question for the forum)

    02/15/2004 8:03:35 AM PST · 62 of 224
    AzJohn to HairOfTheDog
    Like many on the thread, myself included, we assumed at least a serious and devastating sexual accusation and it was not. The guy snapped over relatively nothing.

    Yeah, I was picturing something a lot more serious as well. I was surprised to read the actual circumstances.

    I also think it's a sign of the times that there had to be three investigations. For something this minor the school district investigation should be enough.

  • False accusation leads to tragedy (A question for the forum)

    02/15/2004 7:21:21 AM PST · 33 of 224
    AzJohn to Non-Sequitur
    My question to the forum is this. Since this student's false accusation directly led to the death of Ron Mayfield then shouldn't the student be charged with manslaughter?

    In my opinion, no. I believe the great majority of those who are falsely accused don't kill themselves. Something in Mayfield's own psyche led him to take his own life.

    If the police have clear-cut evidence that the charges were fabricated they should prosecute the student for making the false accusation, but not for manslaughter.

  • GOP senators, officials back alien proposal

    02/15/2004 7:01:09 AM PST · 251 of 292
    AzJohn to ClintonBeGone
    Yes I do, because you know DAMN well that the question being debated WAS NOT whether US Citizens were Americas, it was whether Mexicans were Americans.

    If one uses the term "American" to mean "a citizen of the United States" then to me it seems self-evident that people from other countries are usually not Americans. Of course Mexicans who come here legally and become naturalized citizens are American (meaning a citizen of the U.S.), as are people of Mexican ancestry who are born here.

    As for the rest of your post, two comments: 1) I believe you are much too quick to assign me to a "side" on this thread. I don't disagree with everything you've said on this thread and I don't agree with everything said by the the other posters I pinged. I just thought you were missing the boat on this particular aspect of the debate, that's all. 2) Way too many insults in your post. Yes, this subject does bring out some racist comments at times, but I believe that's not the great majority of posters here.

  • GOP senators, officials back alien proposal

    02/15/2004 1:35:33 AM PST · 248 of 292
    AzJohn to AzJohn
    A slight correction: concerning the statements by Chambliss and Hutchinson, Hutchinson actually referred to the "American economy", not citizens.

    Nonetheless, my point stands. The adjectival form of "American", like the noun, can refer to either the United States or the Western Hemisphere. Hutchinson is intending the former.

  • GOP senators, officials back alien proposal

    02/14/2004 9:24:59 PM PST · 246 of 292
    AzJohn to ClintonBeGone; raybbr; Map Kernow; WhiteChristianCons
    You guys may hate our neighbors, but I'll be damned if I'll let you pervert our language for your despicable and underhanded immigration agenda.

    First, do you really think this is called for? All I do is post a dictionary definition concerning one disputed issue on this thread and I'm being told I "hate our neighbors", and that I am trying to "pervert our langauge" and that I have a "despicable and underhanded immigration agenda". To say that you are reading way too much into my post is a gross understatement.

    The issue wasn't whether US Citizens are American, it's whether Mexicans are Americans.

    No, the issue is what do we mean when we use the term "American". Raybbr and others on this thread clearly are using the term to refer to United States citizens, which corresponds to dictionary definition #3 that I posted. And by that meaning of the word, Mexicans are not Americans.

    You, on the other hand, are using definition #2, in which an American is anyone from the Western Hemisphere, not just the United States. And that is also a valid meaning of the word. The problem is that you are insisting that this is the only possible meaning of the word, and that not to abide by that meaning is evidence of hatred,ignorance, stupidity etc. You have made several such posts which are not at all helpful in this forum, at least in my opinion.

    You might want to take another look at the article that seeded this thread. Senator Saxby Chambliss and Asa Hutchinson are both clearly using the term "American" to refer to United States citizens. Are you going to start calling them names also?

  • Vigilantes targeting Mexican military

    02/14/2004 7:13:09 PM PST · 80 of 102
    AzJohn to JackelopeBreeder
    That's where the $130M went -- away from actual enforcement at the border and into infrastructure and "some" interior enforcement.

    That budget document I linked in #74 does say they are asking for $64 million to deploy more sensors along the border and $10 million for unmanned aerial vehicles, which seem like good things. But pulling agents away from border enforcement, if that's what they are doing, seems really dumb politically quite apart from the merits of it. Weakening our border enforcement would only increase people's doubts about a guest worker program.

  • Vigilantes targeting Mexican military

    02/14/2004 6:00:54 PM PST · 74 of 102
    AzJohn to JackelopeBreeder
    The Border Patrol will not see any reinforcements in manpower or equipment. Dubya's FY 2005 budget proposal cuts their funding by $130 million.

    Are you sure about this? I don't know about the Border Patrol specifically, but the Customs and Border Protection bureau of which they are a part had a budget increase of $223 million requested for FY 05. I take that figure from Department of Homeland Security budget in brief (on page 67 of the PDF file). Could the Border Patrol cut be rearranging things on paper as part of the new organization in the Homeland Security department?

  • GOP senators, officials back alien proposal

    02/14/2004 5:36:01 PM PST · 244 of 292
    AzJohn to ClintonBeGone; Map Kernow; raybbr; WhiteChristianCons
    A utterly ignorant statement. Americans are those that inhabit the american continent.

    Enough with this argument already. The term "American" has more than one meaning. The definitions from Merriam-Webster Online:

    1 : an American Indian of No. America or So. America
    2 : a native or inhabitant of No. America or So. America
    3 : a citizen of the U.S.

    Using the term in the more restrictive sense to refer only to those from the United States is perfectly acceptable.

  • Kerry Says He Will Repair Damage [Kerry writes Islamic Republic's English Newspaper]

    02/08/2004 5:09:32 PM PST · 137 of 306
    AzJohn to okie01
    ...the Kerry campaign and its supporters ARE guilty of issuing a statement which is so pandering and appeasing to our enemies that the enemies feel compelled to promote it and shout it from the proverbial rooftop.

    Good point. And this isn't the only story of this nature to recently appear in this newspaper. I checked the tehrantimes.com web site to see if they've run anything else on Kerry recently. I found this article in the February 7 archive: Senator Kerry Would Seek Direct Talks With Iran: Adviser.

    This story also didn't get any play here in the U.S., as far as I can tell, but some people in Tehran seem to be paying attention.

  • Kerry Says He Will Repair Damage [Kerry writes Islamic Republic's English Newspaper]

    02/08/2004 3:36:39 PM PST · 114 of 306
    AzJohn to freedom44
    I found this same letter posted here. It was an open letter to Americans abroad posted by the steering committee of Americans Overseas for Kerry, one of the groups on the Kerry campaign web site.

    So this text is coming from a part of the Kerry campaign. But would anybody associated with the campaign really be dumb enough to send it to the Iranian news agency? Seems more likely to me that the news agency could have gotten it off the Kerry web site, but that's just my opinion.

  • (Border Patrol) Agent Saves a Life, Only to Lose His On Mexico Border

    02/07/2004 9:30:21 PM PST · 6 of 19
    AzJohn to FairOpinion
    Bush almost tripled the border patrol agents.

    That's not clear from the article. The next sentence after the one you cited is:

    That includes 1,300 agents hired since 2000, reflecting a new emphasis on tracking border crossings.

    So all we really know is out of a total increase of 6,200, 1,300 were hired in the last 3 years. The rest of the increase could have been hired under the previous administration, or perhaps they were transferred to the southern border under this or the previous administration.

  • Charges, names in carjacking released: (Attack of the Illegals)

    02/01/2004 12:05:22 PM PST · 48 of 61
    AzJohn to SandRat
    That's pretty much where I'm at. However much I disagree with McCain on some issues, he's still good on defense and foreign policy, plus we just can't afford to lose any Senate seats to Democrats.
  • Charges, names in carjacking released: (Attack of the Illegals)

    02/01/2004 11:03:39 AM PST · 42 of 61
    AzJohn to navyblue; SandRat
    McCain is actually up for re-election this year. But it doesn't look like he'll have any opposition in the Republican primary, and I assume whoever the Democrats run would be much worse. Flake is expected to win although he does have one declared opponent so far in the Republican primary.
  • Tancredo Warns the Social Security System Endangered by Bush’s "Totalization Agreement" with Mexico

    01/30/2004 4:31:11 AM PST · 83 of 126
    AzJohn to Happy2BMe
    The point is to be clear as to what the problem is with this proposed agreement. It does not provide full cash benefits to Mexicans who have worked here only a few years. To get full benefits they would still need 10 years of working and paying into the system--same as it is for Americans and same as it has always been. Nor do I see anything wrong with legal Mexican immigrants benefitting from this proposal.

    The real problem is that the administration of Social Security has insufficient restrictions on illegals of any nationality qualifying for and receiving Social Security benefits. Strictly speaking, that is not due to the proposed agreeent, but it would exacerbate the problem by expanding the pool of potential beneficiaries.

  • Tancredo Warns the Social Security System Endangered by Bush’s "Totalization Agreement" with Mexico

    01/29/2004 6:38:27 PM PST · 68 of 126
    AzJohn to Happy2BMe; kevao
    These projections don't take into account the economic impact of the Bush proposal, which would allow untold millions of illegal aliens from Mexico to collect full cash benefits for themselves and their families from their home country -- without having to work the required number of years that law-abiding American citizens must work to be eligible for payouts.

    This is not true. The benefits would be prorated between the United States and Mexico. From Congressional testimony by Jo Anne Barnhart, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration:

    Myth #5: Totalization agreements enable non-citizens who work in the United States for a very short period of time to receive full American Social Security benefits.

    False. Totalization agreements provide that the United States will pay prorated benefits to those workers who have: (1) between 6 and 39 quarters of coverage with the U.S. system; and (2) a combined work record of at least 10 years in the United States and a partner country. Again, I emphasize, the benefits are paid on a pro-rated basis. Source

  • Border Disconnect Boils Over; AZ GOP Chairman Under Fire

    01/25/2004 8:12:16 AM PST · 85 of 268
    AzJohn to ClintonBeGone
    Actually, it's the anti-Bush wing of the GOP that is doing the dividing. If you're anti-Bush, in my opinion, you're anti-GOP. There's only one home for you then - as a democrat.

    You're equivocating here. Opposition to the President on a particular issue does not mean you are "anti-Bush". I would bet that the great majority of those precinct captains who endorsed Protect Arizona Now support the President on most other issues.

  • Q. Is this an amnesty? (GWBush guest worker plan)

    01/24/2004 10:19:12 AM PST · 28 of 87
    AzJohn to dennisw; dagnabbit
    Here is one on line SS number data base.

    I think this is what dagnabbit was referring to. It's already set up and has been in use in several states; it's operated by the government; and it ties into Social Security and immigration databases. The legislation just signed is to expand it nationwide. I think the main flaw from an enforcement standpoint is that use of it is entirely voluntary.

  • The Agenda of Islam - A War Between Civilizations

    01/24/2004 9:34:39 AM PST · 61 of 254
    AzJohn to angkor
    Interesting. I knew the Muslims controlled the Mediterranean for centuries, but I'd never learned about such activities in Italy. Thanks for the article.
  • The Agenda of Islam - A War Between Civilizations

    01/24/2004 8:07:39 AM PST · 50 of 254
    AzJohn to angkor
    They don't like it one bit that the seat of Catholicism is on territory briefly occupied by Muslim invaders.

    I found this article on the MEMRI site where some jihadists are predicting Islamic control of Rome and Istanbul at some point in the future. But when was Rome ever occupied by Muslims in the past?

  • Gates predicts death of spam in 2 years

    01/24/2004 4:29:15 AM PST · 5 of 28
    AzJohn to goldstategop
    And its already cut back on the spam that flowed into my MSN mailbox - an account by the way, that's I've never used!

    Even without using any special software, the amount of spam I've gotten on MSN/Hotmail accounts has gone way down in the last couple months. Less spam overall and the stuff that does get through is more likely to go into the junk mail folder rather than my inbox. They've changed their setup somehow to cut back on this stuff.

  • Why You Should Support Bush's Immigration Proposal

    01/23/2004 7:41:44 PM PST · 171 of 308
    AzJohn to Beck_isright
    We thought the same thing about CFR which W "promised" to oppose. It's now the law of the land.

    I thought the point that was always made about CFR was that we didn't have to worry because the Supreme Court would strike it down. (I never bought that argument either.)

    In any event, IIRC it did take several years to pass CFR. And I think immigration reform will take at least a couple years if it passes at all---but I'll admit that's purely speculation on my part.

  • Why You Should Support Bush's Immigration Proposal

    01/23/2004 7:33:58 PM PST · 167 of 308
    AzJohn to Beck_isright
    This is a 100% political move.

    Of course politics was a good part of this. It wasn't a coincidence that so many Latino organizations and business organizations had people meeting at the White House right before this.

    But I don't know that we will actually get any significant immigration reform out of this at all. There are strong competing interests on both the left and right, not to mention some strong incentives to keep things the way they are. I think it is almost certainly too tough a nut for Congress to crack in an election year, so anything that might eventually pass will be at least a couple years in the works.

  • Why You Should Support Bush's Immigration Proposal

    01/23/2004 7:20:01 PM PST · 155 of 308
    AzJohn to Beck_isright
    There is a lot of good stuff in this article. The relationship of illegal immigration to organized crime...the failure of sanctuary policies...the widespread lawbreaking by employers today...all of this right on in my opinion.

    I disagree with him in one respect. He says that President Bush's proposal is worthy of our whole-hearted support. But I think it is too vague and lacking in details for that. This author is filling in the blanks with enforcement provisions of his liking; just as some critics of the President imagine that there will be no enforcement because the President did not specify any.

  • Jan. 7, 2004: New Day of Infamy

    01/19/2004 8:20:34 PM PST · 26 of 67
    AzJohn to znix
    Don't crucify him. Tell your Representatives to correct it. This is a team game guys.

    Quite right. The Presient's vague proposal is quite lacking in some respects and hopefully Congress will add the necessary provisions. It seems quite unlikely to me that anything will pass before 2005 in any event.

  • Dick Morris' Mistake

    01/19/2004 1:19:00 PM PST · 144 of 184
    AzJohn to ClintonBeGone
    The very post you've responded to (#11) has Sabertooth right on top.

    Actually #11 is addressed to "Sabretooth". And I didn't mean to sound accusatory--it is an easy alias to mistype.

    The more important point is that mischaracterizing serious suggestions in the way you did in #11, even when meant as sarcasm, does not help the cause of civil debate. Yes, both sides are doing such but why not elevate the tone of discourse a little? Just my opinion, of course.

  • Dick Morris' Mistake

    01/19/2004 11:05:24 AM PST · 112 of 184
    AzJohn to ClintonBeGone; Sabertooth; David Isaac
    I doubt that there are many who actually hate illegals

    You must be new to these immigration threads. Why I think Sabertooth has some 10 point manifesto that involves mining the border and sterilings their pets!

    No doubt you intended this as sarcasm but it's still bad form, especially considering you didn't actually ping Sabertooth.

    Here are Sabertooth's actual proposals (not that I agree with all of them), so that people can judge for themselves.

  • Immigration fixes real and imagined: Nice carrot, Mr President, where's the stick?

    01/18/2004 5:57:27 AM PST · 21 of 22
    AzJohn to WOSG
    Nice job of research and analysis on this.

    Your title highlights the biggest problem with the President's proposal. Without increased enforcement it would only lead to more legal and illegal immigrants. And at this point it is not enough to have generic boilerplate in a speech about the need for workplace enforcement. The Administration should be proposing or at least supporting some specific ideas on this, like the ones you offer.

  • The false dilemma behind the Bush Amnesty

    01/17/2004 7:50:10 PM PST · 234 of 270
    AzJohn to ninenot
    Cato is a THE libertarian think-tank. Way back on this thread (before #50) I posted an article including a link to a conference held at Cato regarding the President's proposal. The post is worth a read.

    I read your earlier posts (and I have heard of the Cato Institute). I did not view the video that you linked to, and I gather I would have seen the misrepresentation you refer to exhibited there. I'll take your word for it that it happened.

  • The false dilemma behind the Bush Amnesty

    01/17/2004 7:44:33 PM PST · 231 of 270
    AzJohn to dcwusmc; reluctantwarrior
    But the whole idea is (or SHOULD BE) to GET THE ILLEGALS OUT OF THE COUNTRY.

    I suppose people are going to have slightly diffent goals concerning immigration. Mine is to reduce illegal immigration to the lowest level that is workable. I don't want the current illegals to gain either citizenship or green cards ahead of those who did things legally. And I think the current illegals should pay some price for having violated the law. Basically I'm open to suggestions provided we stick to those principles.

    There have been several proposals for penalties on those currently here illegally that fall short of deporting them. There have been suggestions that they pay a fine, or that they get a special visa that delays for several years their option to get legal permanent residence. Earlier in this thread reluctantwarrior suggested allowing them to apply for guest worker visas, provided they go back to their home country to do so.

    The bottom line for me is that to have a solution that's politically possible I think we have to have options short of deporting and barring all of today's illegals.

  • The false dilemma behind the Bush Amnesty

    01/17/2004 12:33:45 PM PST · 155 of 270
    AzJohn to reluctantwarrior
    If you fast track the visa apps of people using the system now in place with a job in the US then many will self deport once the word gets out. So I think you can have the vetting and registration and also allow most aliens to come back and work and have them pay for the deportation costs themselves.

    You might have something there. It seems you'd have to allow a grace period of a couple years for all that to take place, but I can't see any real flaw to it.

  • The false dilemma behind the Bush Amnesty

    01/17/2004 12:29:38 PM PST · 152 of 270
    AzJohn to Marine Inspector
    It has been proven time and time again, that legalizing illegal aliens encourages more illegal immigration....Why reward criminal aliens and punish law-abiding aliens?

    I would agree that the illegals should be penalized somehow relative to those that have never broken the law. But there are ways of doing that short of having them leave the country. I did think that this was a possible shortcoming of the President's proposal, and hope that Congress does something about that in the upcoming months/years.

  • The false dilemma behind the Bush Amnesty

    01/17/2004 12:24:11 PM PST · 145 of 270
    AzJohn to ninenot
    I'm not familiar with the Cato conference, but it sounds like that phrase was misused in that particular discussion. My point was more general--that there is not an inherent contradiction in saying that the visa can be renewed many times and also saying that it has an end date.
  • The false dilemma behind the Bush Amnesty

    01/17/2004 12:04:35 PM PST · 132 of 270
    AzJohn to reluctantwarrior
    Legalizing without prior vetting provides an incentive for more illegals to come before the cut off

    That was the problem with the 1986 amnesty, wasn't it? Perhaps this time, whatever we end up adopting, it will work somewhat better if the process is closely tied to employment. Certainly this is a problem that needs to be considered.

    I don't totally disagree with those who say they should go back to their home country and apply. My fear, however, is that would be a dealbreaker for U.S. employers. IMO, it would be better to compromise on that part of it.

  • The false dilemma behind the Bush Amnesty

    01/17/2004 11:51:26 AM PST · 117 of 270
    AzJohn to Marine Inspector
    ...the Presidents plan will neither stop illegal immigration or terrorism and it will not impact either in any negative way.

    Since this is your line of work let me ask you: do you think that it is impossible to provide legal status to most of the illegals currently here and still have a workable plan? Is it possible to combine President Bush's principles with some combination of future incentives or enforcement, or does legalizing so many doom any proposal like this to failure?

  • The false dilemma behind the Bush Amnesty

    01/17/2004 11:44:37 AM PST · 106 of 270
    AzJohn to ninenot
    Her response indicated there would be NO end to renewals.

    I don't think multiple or even unlimited renewals contradicts the phrase "have an end". That phrase only contrasts the guest worker visas with legal permanent residence or citizenship. Those statuses literally do not have an end date. Regardless of how many times you renew the visa, it still has an end date specified.

    JMO, of course. We're all trying to read tea leaves here.

  • The false dilemma behind the Bush Amnesty

    01/17/2004 11:34:01 AM PST · 84 of 270
    AzJohn to AzJohn
    "in order renew." = "in order to renew."
  • The false dilemma behind the Bush Amnesty

    01/17/2004 11:32:02 AM PST · 81 of 270
    AzJohn to Southack
    I don't want to reject the President's proposal out of hand, but I think you are really viewing it through rose-colored glasses.

    We won't necessarily know where they are working if they change jobs. And if they work for someone illegally after their 3-year visa has expired, we won't have any idea where they are.

    Regarding the need to apply for the visa renewal abroad--what is your source for the contention that they have to go back home to renew it? Here is what the fact sheet on the President's proposal says:

    The program will require the return of temporary workers to their home country after their period of work has concluded. The legal status granted by this program would last three years, be renewable, and would have an end.

    That says only that they have to go home at the end of their "period of work". It does not say they have to go home in order renew. It is somewhat ambiguous but it is more reasonable to conclude that they only have to leave when their total time here is done.

  • The false dilemma behind the Bush Amnesty

    01/17/2004 10:55:19 AM PST · 27 of 270
    AzJohn to Southack
    After investing 3 years of their lives into Bush's new plan, few illegals will be willing to risk losing it all. Rather than forfeit their legal right to live and work here, as well as lose their refundable taxes, most illegals will opt to return back to their home countries in order to be able to apply for more legal time here.

    A little over half of the illegals we have now are people who came here legally originally and overstayed their visas. I'm skeptical that the voluntary departures you describe will usually happen. I think we'll need some additional interior enforcement, although there is a possibility that might be incorporated as this goes through Congress.

  • The false dilemma behind the Bush Amnesty

    01/17/2004 10:40:42 AM PST · 14 of 270
    AzJohn to Sabertooth
    I don't know if proposals/approaches on this subject should be categorized so neatly as you suggest. For example, most of your 18 points could in theory be combined with the principles from President Bush's speech last week.

    Suppose such a combination, some sort of guest worker approach which includes current illegals along with some of your enforcement measures, made it through Congress. Depending on the specifics I might support that. Is any kind of legalization of most of those currently here illegally a deal-breaker for you, regardless of what else is in the package?

  • Mark Steyn: llIegals the political 'untouchables'

    01/11/2004 11:10:21 AM PST · 82 of 131
    AzJohn to Sabertooth
    Thanks for the ping. Great piece by Steyn.

    As it happens there was also a front page story in this morning's Arizona Republic concerning the current dysfunctional process for handling immigration applications, which now has a backlog of 6.2 million applications. There seems to be a consensus among all parties that the existing process badly needs a revamp. I think that only increases the likelihood that nothing based on President Bush's proposal is going to pass, especially not this year.

  • Top Immigration Official: Bush Proposal Doable

    01/11/2004 10:51:14 AM PST · 6 of 48
    AzJohn to upchuck
    I remember reading somewhere (probably here on FR but I don't have a link) last year that the INS had admitted that trying to round up 8-10 million criminal aliens would be an impossible task.

    And now they are saying registering these same criminals is a "tall challenge" but doable? I'm sorry, what changed?

    I'm not following your thought. "Round up" sounds like you are going out and finding them. Wouldn't most of them come on in voluntarily to register as guest workers?

    Nonetheless, I am also skeptical of the government's ability to pull this off unless we do a major revamp of the relevant bureaucracy, especially considering that there are 6.2 million pending immigration applications that many think should come first.

  • Immigration's past lessons ( critics point to problems with earlier efforts)

    01/11/2004 7:45:12 AM PST · 6 of 6
    AzJohn to Vaduz
    Mass deproting is required of we are to get an upper hand on this problem.

    Depends on what you mean by "mass". We could deport the 400,000 for which deportation orders have already been issued. And, for any law that is passed on this, we could benefit from much more employment-related enforcement that would punish both the illegal and the employer.

    But if by "mass" you mean some sort of large effort to find all the illegals in the general population, I'd suggest not doing it. It would be doomed to failure and probably backfire in terms of public opinion as well.