"President Bush earlier this week convinced the House leadership to attach an amnesty bill to a series of other non-controversial bills that usually don't require much debate. The measure was passed.

Critics of Bush's bill say the granting of amnesty to millions of illegals rewards illegal behavior, worsens domestic security and demoralizes the Border Patrol and other law enforcement agencies charged with enforcing immigration laws.

On Wednesday, Bush signed into law the "Family Sponsor Immigration Act of 2002," which, the White House said, "allows an alternative family member to sign the necessary affidavit of support for an alien in the event of the death of the relative who initially filed a petition for permanent resident status for the alien."

Bush is such an ass. If Bin Laden capped Bush I wouldn't shed a tear.

HAHAHA!

The only people who will think this is a "common sense" and "reasonable" action are the one that don't live in the border states. If dubyah thinks he is going to get the votes from the illegals in 2004 he is in store for a big disappointment.

Why didn't he REPEAL the "assault weapon" ban and all of the unconstitutional anti-gun crap FOR THE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS instead of rewarding criminals????

Yeah, really.    Rewarding people for unlawful entry into this country, sapping its resources while contributing little in return,  while at the same time penalizing hard working citizens who were born here and were born to the right to keep and bear arms.

It's not too late, though.   Pursue your senators and get this amnesty bill killed.

In fact, I'd like to see a push to get the border jumpers weeded out of our nation and sent home or put in jail, or better yet, sent home after spending a year in jail.


CJ


CJ

Cause the general public thinks that most gun owners are psycho.

Now go out tomorrow and convert two liberals, and then get them to convert two liberals, and so on and so on. Wait a minute,,, isn't that a shampoo commercial or something???

Well give it a try anyway.

[b]It is not law yet![/b]
The measure, similar to one that already has passed the Senate, passed the House by 275-137, and now goes back to the Senate.
[i]Copyright © 2002 Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services. Wednesday, March 13, 2002[/i]

Don't just complain, take action!

The originator of this thread is wrong.

ron97ws6 is correct - the bill awaits Senate approval.

There are widely different views on the effect this bill will have on the immigration laws.

By the way, this bill passed the house with 182 democratic votes, 92 republican.

See how your congress critter voted [url=http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2002&rollnumber=53] here[/url].

Edited to add - If you don’t know your congress critters name click [url=http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm] here[/url]. Thanks to the GOA.


Mike

What is this? The 3rd time we've done this? Every time they say it will help curtail illegal immigration, but in fact it increases illegal immigration as the illegals realize all they have to do is stay long enough and they will be declared legal.

I too think Bush is hoping for the Mexican vote, but I don't think he'll get it.

I hate to call him a traitor to the conservative cause, but this is a big disappointment.

What the hell is he thinking? All I can think is he took the carrot the demos were going to use the next time around. But as whose expense?

Sadly, that is not so RAF.  He's been pushing this for quite some time.

I am completely against it.  I am also against the policy of setting illegals go on our soil after they spend time in prison.

Illegals needed to be rounded up and deported and then denied any access back into the states.  If they found out they could never come back into the country because of their illegal actions, I bet the legal channels would be used a bit more.  They have to face some kind of consequences for breaking the law.

The only consequence they face in California is cheaper college tuition than out-of-state American citizens.

Political reality.  Or my opinion of political reality.

Governor Bush of Texas was able to generate a good deal of the Hispanic vote.
Presidential Candidate Bush was able to do the same thing.
President Bush is trying to again reach-out to the Hispanic community and provide some sort of coat-tail for Republican candidates to run with.

Republicans have already begun to skim the top of black voters and bring them into the Republican party.  However, it will probably we many years before significant numbers of Black Americans vote Republican.

Now, Governor and Candidate Bush was able to convince more Hispanics to vote Republican.

From purely a practical political standpoint we need the Hispanic vote to put Republicans in office.

I don't like this bill either, but I'm not aware that aliens, illegal or otherwise, are allowed to vote. Please educate me.

I seem to recall that Dubya got less a share of the black vote than Dad or Reagan got.  Hispanics, the usual 50/50.

I don't see any results for all this racial pandering.  Realistically, it will take a generation to see any sea changes in minority voting patterns, but by then the Republican party will only be a mirror of the Demoratic party.  Ha!  A party that exists only to keep itself in office.  What does it really stand for?

I don't see Bush using this as a smokescreen.  This is the way it is for him.  Clinton-lite.  Where are the great Republican principles that he came to town to fight for?  He had 9 months to introduce them, before 9/11.

All I see now is a massive change, not for the better, in the relationship between the Federal government and its citizens since he took office.      

Rewarded for crime and making chumps of all the people that played by the rules. This is a blow... and they sure as hell won't vote for him anyway.



Because most will go on to become citizens, and even waiting for that hasn't held back people who want to vote. Electoral fraud is rife in border states.

This only the beginning my multicolored pilgrims.

You gringos need to get over it, if the right person came along and spoke the truth most wouldn't vote for him anyway. >PAT BUCHANAN<

United States must reject Mexico's amnesty demands

by Yeh Ling-Ling

Published August 13, 2001, in The Union Leader, Manchester, New Hampshire

Mexican President Vicente Fox is demanding an amnesty for 3 million illegal Mexican immigrants, in addition to hundreds of thousands of guest worker visas and benefits for illegal immigrants. What would be the social and political consequences if the United States yields to Fox's demands?
President Bush won the election in Florida by only a few hundred votes. However, if millions of illegal aliens are granted amnesty and later become United States citizens, how many new voters will we see in future elections? Naturalized citizens can also petition for extended family members to immigrate to this country. In the meantime, children born in the United States to all newcomers are American citizens and can become voters when they reach 18. Is this what former Mexican President Zedillo had in mind when he affirmed in Chicago in 1997 that “the Mexican nation extends beyond its territory enclosed by its borders and that Mexican migrants are an important, a very important part of it”?

Meanwhile, many Mexican American leaders at the state and national levels have publicly stated that it is only a matter of time before Latinos will control California, the Southwestern United States, and the entire United States For example, Henry Cisneros, former Secretary of HUD, said in 1995: “As goes the Latino population will go the state of California... will go the United States of America... the stakes are big, this is a fight worth making ...” Mario Obledo, former California Secretary of Health and Welfare, said on a national radio show in 1998, “... Eventually, we are going to take over all the political institutions of California...” Furthermore, Hispanic Prof. Charles Truxillo, who teaches Chicano studies at the University of New Mexico, publicly predicted in early 2000 that the Southwest secession into a new, sovereign Hispanic nation is an “inevitability” due to continued high immigration.

Indeed, the 2000 census shows that 58.5 percent of this country's 35.3 million Latinos have Mexican origins and are predominantly concentrated in the Southwest. California, New Mexico and, possibly, Texas are already minority-majority states with Hispanics being the fastest growing group. If the United States population continues to grow as it did during the last decade as shown in the 2000 census, mathematically, Hispanics could be the majority in California by as early as 2020 and in the United States by the middle of this century. (By that time, the United States population could be half of today's India.) Presently, many bills seeking to grant benefits to illegal immigrants are being pushed in many state legislatures. If passed, those laws would undoubtedly encourage higher illegal immigration. Undoubtedly, higher immigration rates from Mexico for years to come would only be politically advantageous to leaders like Fox, Cisneros, Obledo and Truxillo.

Most Latinos in the United States are good workers and have no political agenda. However, explosive Hispanic population growth in numerous states, mobilized by ambitious political activists, could have severe social and political consequences. In fact, Prof. Samuel P. Huntington, chairman of the Harvard Academy for International Area Studies and a former White House Coordinator of Security Planning for the National Security Council, wrote : “... The invasion of over one million Mexican civilians [per year] ... would be a comparable threat to American societal security, and Americans should react against it with comparable vigor...". African-American Prof. Cobie Harris, who teaches ethnic studies at San Jose State University, even suggested that “Kosovo can happen in America.” Prof. Maria Hsia Chang, who teaches political science at the University of Nevada, Reno, believes that massive Mexican immigration will undoubtedly lead to political instability. In fact, Mario Obledo has publicly said that those who don't like Mexicans “should go back to Europe."

Even in the absence of social and political turmoil, current levels of immigration from all countries, the driving force behind the United States population growth, should be substantially cut across the board. If this country's population continues to increase by 33 million users of energy and social services every 10 years, as it did in last decade, how can we effectively address key concerns of all Americans? Since most of the United States population growth is immigration-related and because public schools in many states are swamped with children speaking little or no English, President Bush cannot substantially improve this nation's education by promoting immigration.

For the sake of our national unity and racial harmony, leaders in Washington should reject Vicente Fox's demands and instead adopt a time-out from mass immigration. This moratorium would at least allow timely assimilation of newcomers already here.

Yeh Ling-Ling is the Executive Director of Diversity Alliance for a Sustainable America, a national non-profit organization. She can be reached at (510) 835-5017.
------------------------------

Good points, but it's always expediency and accommodating others that wins out in this country.