Bush Encouraged Illegal Aliens, Congressman Says

[Terri]

Bush Encouraged Illegal Aliens, Congressman Says

By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
June 29, 2005

The co-sponsor of legislation to make it more difficult for illegal aliens to find work in the United States said Tuesday that the Bush administration is encouraging the illegal entry by offering amnesty and is trying to cover up the proof of its actions.

U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) has consistently warned that the "Temporary Worker Program," proposed by President Bush in January, would, "encourage millions of people to come here illegally seeking his amnesty proposal."

More (http://www.gopusa.com/news/2005/june/0629_illegal_aliens1 .shtml)

[jackbenimble]

I am a big fan of Tom Tancredos but I'm not sure what his point is.

I thought the huge increase in the flow of illegal aliens which resulted from President Bush's announcement of his Shamnesty Guestworker Plan back in January of 2004 was widely accepted as an established fact.

Regards,
Jack

[ncfm]

Still it was informative. I also knew about the spike in illegasl following the "Bush" January speech. I didn't however know about the obvious attempts to cover up the fact that the spike was occuring. House members have been supportive of reducing immigration (both legal as well as illegal), the Senate less so. Perhaps it's time to consider recall petitions for certain Senators, and (dare I say it) maybe even a petition (not necessarily for impeachment) directed at George Dubya?

Maybe a little over the top, but let's face it, George Bush is ignoring what the citizens and voters have to say on a very vital issue! Republicans who ignore their constituency on border security and illegal immigration/amnesty issues do so at peril to their legislative careers. I'm personally counting the days til I can send some of these people back to the private sector!

[Terri]

Recalls of senators have to take place in the state that they are from and not all states even permit it. The only Congress folks you can send back to private life are the ones you voted for, although I will agree that there are many who should be sent back. In the Senate that is probably most of them.

Impeaching the president? A little over the top? Nancy Pelosi will be happy you are on her side.

Jack, I'm sure Tancredo's point was publicity. Isn't that what all politicians want?

[rangerrebew]

Let us not forget, only the Congress can make laws, though the supreme soviet seems to be doing a fine job of it too, and if they don't like what is going on they can make a law. The problem is too many of them are more concerned about their political futures than they are about the country so they are afraid to take a stand. Maybe the President was trying to get THE CONGRESS off their dead *sses and do their jobs. If so, maybe the strategy is finally working.

[Froufrou]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">Jack, I'm sure Tancredo's point was publicity. Isn't that what all politicians want?
[/QUOTE]

Terri, nothing would please me more than this. If he runs on an immigration platform, I will do everything in my power to assist in his campaign.

AND

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">Maybe the President was trying to get THE CONGRESS off their dead *sses and do their jobs. If so, maybe the strategy is finally working.[/QUOTE]

Ranger - I don't think that's too far-fetched, at all! Bush is a very fine delegator, why not this issue, too? If enough people are unhappy with his prior proposals, why wouldn't he delegate the job of finding a better one?

[Terri]

I would assist his campaign too, Frou. But, I would like to see him stay away from cheap publicity at the expense of his own party.

I've been thinking about the effort to impeach Bush by the liberals, Democrats, moonbats and anti-Republican conservatives.

Maybe they should be careful what they wish for, because what they would get is Dick Cheney who would become the incumbent who could run for one more term, maybe two, depending on timing. Hmmmmm..... http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin5.gif

[Froufrou]

Yes, Terri, just as someone said in another thread, if the Dems had been smarter they'd have gone after Clinton themselves, had Gore for maybe two and a half more terms...

[CatsMom]

I love George W. but I DO NOT agree with his policy and proposals on illegal aliens.

[rangerrebew]

Frou: what can the commiecrats possibly be smarter than? You and I both know it isn't Coco. http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[TerryMKl]

Anyone else having a difficult time understanding the President's tacit approval of illegal immigration? I keep asking myself why he continues to support an agenda that the majority of U.S. citizens oppose. Seems like a logical disconnect to conduct a War on terror while permiting open borders. There was better border security during the Vietnam era, no doubt to prevent draft evasion. Could the administration be looking forward to a Jeb Bush run for the Presidency and concerns that stricter border controls may alienate groups of voters? http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif

[Old Man]

Low wages. Fight inflation. Help needy people, make more businesses competitive.

There can be all kinds of reasons but, they may not be good reason, they may not be reasons the majority supports, and they may do harm in the long run even if they do good in the short run.

Or, I may be wrong and they are doing harm in the short run, but will do good in the long run by eventually having positive effects on social security and healthcare costs. I may not have the information to see the future as well as others with more information can. I may only be looking at the now.

But, whatever his reasons, he can't get on TV with public opinion as it is and say, &quot;I want more illegals to come here.&quot; He knows too that most won't support enough &quot;legal&quot; immigration to replace the number that would be lost in &quot;illegal&quot; immigration if the borders are secure or incentives to come here are reduced.

I too, disagree, but I do believe he has reasons he believes are best for the nation in the long run. I say this because the desire for social security reform, tax reform, taking democracy to other places, are all expensive in the short run, but will be improvements in the long run. Of course, he isn't having a lot of luck convincing some of the long term benefits of those other policies either.

However, the President can do nothing much if the &quot;will of the President&quot; isn't passed in Congress. We have to remember that we have never elected a perfect President and never will and that is why we &quot;check&quot; him with a legislature. They are the important key to this nation and the &quot;will of the people.&quot; It is why we have to fight for the control of the Senate and House in 06 for enough majority that we can support or defeat any President's policies we choose to. I have never had a President I agreed with 100%.

As a matter of a fact the only person I agree with frequently is me. Even then, I often later overrule me when I get new information (or go to church).

[pRIMrose]

Another thought. Just how many &quot;south of the border&quot; countries are thriving democracies. On a par with the US?

At the rate we are absorbing illegals (along with the regular flow of legals) it is only a matter of time before the entire demographics will change in this country - and we will most likely be an extension of what they left. The border towns and cities where they have gained control are not much better off than the ghettos that they left to come here. When they, by the strength of sheer numbers, are the government, local, state and Federal, why do we think that they will be able to uphold the Constitution of this country and not succumb to their own inevitable and predictable corruption.

The &quot;Global Plantation&quot; is not meant to be a paradise for all. It can only proliferate the socialistic direction we are already headed. We require more and more programs to accommodate greater and greater problems created by lack of good judgement that threatens our own survival.

Yes, I believe that our president has encouraged illegal aliens.

When a country is in such shakey shape that it needs the services of millions upon millions of illegal migrants to save it from looming economic crisis, then something needs to be changed. Drastically. And, IMO, it doesn't include inviting more of what got us to this point in the first place.

Of course, there's always that &quot;ace in the hole&quot; ~ Mars. http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin2.gif

[pRIMrose]

P.S. ~ I knew this before I voted for George Bush. Like OM says, you aren't going to get 100%. The most you can hope for is that the person you do vote for will give you &quot;more&quot; of what you want than the opposition. This was a &quot;no brainer.&quot; http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[TerryMKl]

Giving the President the benefit of the doubt as to his motivations regarding illegal immigration, how can we be certain that the illegals crossing our border are friendly versus some radical Islamic terrorist group out to inflict a catastrophic attack on our citizenry? Sometimes hard choices have to be made and in war time, national security has to trump all other concerns. I find it unbelievable that in a post 911 world, we have the Transportation Safety Administration patting down little old ladies in airports while illegal aliens are crossing our borders unfettered and securing permits to transport hazardous materials. *http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[Old Man]

Again, I disagree with him but, what if he thinks the people who will really do our nation harm with a big terrorist strike will get in here or already here no matter what. I wonder if he is depending on intelligence efforts to detect threats more than trying to actually keep them out. I know I have heard some high up people state that they believe if someone wants to get in here and they have the money to do it, they will get in. They may come in as a student, a visitor, a &quot;worker,&quot; or illegally, but they will get in. The intelligence agencies are depending more, I believe, on intercepting messages and watching some key targets that they know are in the sights of the terrorists. They know from intercepted messages and captured people who talked, more than we may realize. I think this is why the people that were filming certain targets were caught. We were looking for them and so were the British and the Austrailians, and others.

But, I do agree, we won't keep them out even if our borders are totally secured. They will come in &quot;legally&quot; if they have to.

[americanfirst]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">Anyone else having a difficult time understanding the President's tacit approval of illegal immigration? I keep asking myself why he continues to support an agenda that the majority of U.S. citizens oppose. Seems like a logical disconnect to conduct a War on terror while permiting open borders.[/QUOTE]

You have to look no farther than the Chamber of Commerce website. Their for it. He's for it. End of story.

[Old Man]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, for its part, supports providing more stability for illegal immigrants.

“We have 10.5 million illegal workers in the United States right now,&quot; Chamber President Thomas Donohue said. &quot;If they went home, we’d have to shut down the country.”

And Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, welcomed the proposal, saying, “I commend President Bush for this constructive step toward important and, frankly, overdue immigration reform.”[/QUOTE]Bush seeks legal status for illegal immigrants (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3887721/#storyContinued)

It is like I have been saying. Many people aren't saying it, but believe the economic impact would be tough on the nation as a whole and are willing to let some suffer to keep that from happening. It doesn't matter whether they are right or wrong, they believe it.

They may even want more, if they think it is helping in some key areas even if it is hurting other areas like healthcare costs. They know they can't get on TV and say things are so bad that they think this helps because they know too many people are against it. So, give it lip service and keep stalling on reform that actually stops the flow across the border.

[Original Rebel]

http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/star2.gif *http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/star2.gif *http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/star2.gif

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">When a country is in such shakey shape that it needs the services of millions upon millions of illegal migrants to save it from looming economic crisis, then something needs to be changed. *Drastically. *And, IMO, it doesn't include inviting more of what got us to this point in the first place.[/QUOTE]

I'm with you pRIM. *You can only put so much water in a pot...then there's no place else for it to go...

In my not so humble opinion, there should have been a moratorium on immigration long ago...all immigration! *One country can only absorb so much, especially when most of those who are coming are nothing but a bunch of criminal gangs.

If we don't get tough and pretty darn soon, we won't have an America fit to live in anymore.

Jupiter, anyone?


http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/bird16.gif

[ScottyDog]

What do you think the economic impact of Illegal Immigration is to this country?

How about 86 bankrupt hospitals in California.

How about 9 billion is Health Care spending for Illegal Mexicans in California

How about 2 race riots in Baldwin Park, California last month that was not covered by the news media.
http://www.kirkbytv.com/index2.htm

We are being invaded by Mexico and the GOP sits idly by thwarting the will of the people.

This is tantamount to Treason.

George Bush is aiding and abetting Illegal Immigration.

I will not give one red cent to the GOP until it closes our borders and stops this invasion.

[TennesseeDave]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">What do you think the economic impact of Illegal Immigration is to this country?
[/QUOTE]
Given that 33% of our prison population is comprised of illegal immigrants and (according to a Lou Dobbs report) between 36 and 42% of illegals are on some kind of welfare, the impact seems not quite so hazy.

That illegals are taxing the educational and medical systems to the breaking point in some states is a given.

The National Academy of Sciences found that the net fiscal drain on American taxpayers is between $166 and $226 a year per native household. Even studies claiming some modest overall gain for the economy from immigration ($1 to $10 billion a year) have found that it is outweighed by the fiscal cost ($15 to $20 billion a year) to native taxpayers.&quot;

Figures like that begin to make the economic impact very clear. For some, it may be a profitable venture, for the American taxpayer, it's another disaster.