See other Immigration Articles
Title: Bush eyes Democrats for help on amnesty
Source:
Washington Times
URL Source: http://www.washtimes.com/functions/ ... ?StoryID=20061109-124147-5586r
Published: Nov 9, 2006
Author: Stephen Dinan
Post Date: 2006-11-09 10:26:18 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 137
Comments: 6
President Bush yesterday said he will team up with Democrats to pass an immigration bill with a guest-worker program that his own party blocked this year, and his Republican opponents predicted a bloody intraparty fight but said they cannot stop such a bill from passing. "We will fight it, we will lose. It will go to the Senate, it will pass. The president will sign it. And it will happen quickly because that's one thing they know they can pass," said Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican and chairman of the House Immigration Reform Caucus, who had led the opposition to a guest-worker plan. "I am absolutely horrified by this prospect, but I have to face reality." Mr. Bush supported a bipartisan majority in the Senate this year that passed a broad immigration bill including a new worker program and citizenship rights for millions of illegal aliens. But House Republicans blocked those efforts, calling them an amnesty, and instead forced through a bill to erect nearly 700 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border. Tuesday's elections removed that obstacle by turning control of the House over to Democrats. Yesterday, in an afternoon press conference, the president said he shares Democrats' vision on immigration and will try again for a broad bill. "There's an issue where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats," he said. According to Reuters news agency, a spokesman for Mexican President Vicente Fox cheered Democrats' success, saying it improves chances for getting a bill done. And Democrats said the issue's time has come. "With alignment now in Congress and the White House, this is a unique opportunity," said Rep. Howard L. Berman, California Democrat, a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee and a leader on the issue. He said there are a number of House Republicans who thought their enforcement approach was bad policy but good politics. He said that belief was shattered by Tuesday's elections with the loss of two Republicans in Arizona -- Randy Graf, a candidate for a seat near Tucson, and Rep. J.D. Hayworth, an incumbent from Scottsdale -- who both ran heavily on opposition to a guest-worker program. Other losses included Rep. John Hostettler, the Indiana Republican who was chairman of the immigration subcommittee, and Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who ran heavily on border security, hoping the issue could save him. Republicans who backed Mr. Bush on the issue said the results are clear. "Over the last two years, people who have been in my position on immigration have done well, and people who have been more extreme have done badly," said Rep. Chris Cannon, a Utah Republican who backs a guest-worker plan. He said Republicans goofed by not passing a bill, because they will now be forced to accept Democratic legislation far closer to amnesty. "If we'd done this as Republicans, we wouldn't even have the argument of pathway to citizenship," he said. Mr. Cannon said Democrats will now get credit for solving the problem, and said Mr. Tancredo will be left with "a soapbox to pound the living daylights out of people who are scared of America changing." There are still some big hurdles to a bill passing. While Mr. Bush and most Democrats agree that many illegal aliens should have a regular legal status, a key sticking point is whether future workers will also have a chance at citizenship. The Senate bill allowed citizenship rights for those workers, but Mr. Bush has consistently rejected that. Immigration also could get bogged down in 2008 presidential politics. Mr. Cannon said he worries Democrats are trying to use the issue to bait Mr. Tancredo into a third-party candidacy to split Republican votes. "I think the goal of the Democrats is not going to be good legislation, I think it's going to be empowering a third-party candidate," he said. Mr. Tancredo has been considering a run for the Republican nomination in 2008, and said yesterday he has not made a decision. But he said pundits will take the wrong lesson from his party's election-night losses. "The results of this election, although they did not occur as a result of the immigration issue, will negatively affect our cause more than anybody ever anticipated," he said. Rep. Steve King, an Iowa Republican who wants a crackdown on illegal immigration and opposes a guest-worker plan, said Republicans didn't lose because of immigration but in spite of it. He said Mr. Santorum came late to the issue and "it looked like it was a political position for him rather than a conviction." As for Mr. Graf, he had to fight both Democrats and Republicans, who poured money into the race trying to defeat him in the primary. "We know where the polls are; we saw the Democrats run on border security," Mr. King said. He vowed to redouble his efforts to fight a guest-worker bill, but said he also sees Mr. Bush signing whatever Congress sends over: "It'll be hard for him to resist a bill that will be put on his desk by a new Democratic majority."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
Well, immigration. There's a pesky little problem. How can corporo-America keep it's black market labor supply and how can the Democrats expand their Chicano outreach at the same time? It's clear that the status quo is very profitable, but is it sustainable? The people want a fence. The Mexicans who've been here for decades want citizenship. The bosses want cheap, illegal labor and non-enforcement of hiring laws. The CIA wants the border to stay open to run drugs. The Mexican gummint wants the border open as a pressure valve way to keep their poverty-stricken people from revolting and removing their corrupt hides from power. The Maquiladoras want the border open for goods, but closed to labor so they can keep their slaves... It's a sticky, sticky wicket. Lots of interests at play.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
I have always been for amnesty because human rights know no color, nationality, gender, age or condition. The focus should be on diologing with our neighbors who are here and making the assimilation process work. If the energy being wasted on making people go back was turned into compassion and making clear that if they want th full trappings of their culture preserved, going home is their one and only option. You use what they want - jobs and better options for the future - as the carrot on the stick to make them learn English, use it, and assimilate in other ways. A long term solution is what we need to look at, and there is room for these people here, and this trend cannot last and will in fact naturally reverse itself because of employment shortages at home, and a percentage just won't want to ultimately become citizens of the United States. I support amnesty, and I support maintaining confidence in this country's well known ability to be a melting pot to a panicking and a turning to hatred and divisiveness turning human beings against human beings. In the end, like any immigrants they too will have a larger stake in the community and expect more pay and better opportunities. The current labor exploit will be played out and greedy capitalists will not be able to so easily play the one labor force against the other card. I want amnesty and the border fence defunded and forgotten about. I want a workable amnesty plan in place and adhered to. It is in no way a bad idea to do this, just one long overdue in it's implementation.
Well, I have some differences with you. I support amnesty for folks who've been here a while, but a fence also. We cannot sustainably be the spillway for Mexican economic failures and poor population control, nor can we sustain our wages being driven down by an imported slave class. We can't ethnically cleanse our neighborhoods of the Mexican born, either, so amnesty makes sense. As for the cultural aspect, hell, let 'em speak Spanish. There are still Chinese in Chinatown who speak Cantonese and it doesn't hurt anyone.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
I agree on the language, I was just not clear of the context of usage. They should learn English whether they use Spanish in their day to day personal lives or not. I can live with your opinion on the fence, but suffice it to say I have personal issues philosophically with fences, and see this fence as no solution to the very real problems you articulate so well.
Pretty soon the people will be a minority. That is the plan. Look to become a second class citizen in your own country.
Hispanics aren't people? Who knew?
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
"We know where the polls are; we saw the Democrats run on border security," Mr. King said.
#2. To: bluedogtxn (#1)
Tree sit, Eugene, Oregon
#3. To: Ferret Mike (#2)
I want amnesty and the border fence defunded and forgotten about. I want a workable amnesty plan in place and adhered to. It is in no way a bad idea to do this, just one long overdue in it's implementation.
#4. To: bluedogtxn (#3)
Tree sit, Eugene, Oregon
#5. To: bluedogtxn (#1)
#6. To: willyone (#5)
Pretty soon the people will be a minority. That is the plan. Look to become a second class citizen in your own country.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest