[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Opinions/Editorials Title: Amnesty - good for country, or good for Democrats? One of the most outspoken critics of illegal immigration calls the latest amnesty bill submitted to Congress nothing but an effort to create a permanent dependency class in the United States that will permanently support Democrats.
Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinos)Recently Congressman Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois) introduced what he is calling the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity," which would effectively give amnesty to over 12 million illegal aliens in the United States. (See earlier article) Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) is staunchly opposed to Gutierrez's bill and says it is only about keeping Democrats in power. "If I would advocate such a thing from my district, I can tell you that the people in the district would rise up and clamor for me to be removed from office -- but apparently the people in Chicago see some kind of benefit [to Gutierrez's bill]," the congressman contends.
Steve King"This isn't about America's prosperity," King continues, "this is about expanding the dependency class in America, trying to create a permanent dependency class so it will permanently vote for Democrats so they can be permanently in power, permanently undermining our liberty, our free enterprise system, and our Constitution and rule of law itself. That's what this is about; it isn't about helping people, and I think Gutierrez knows that." King explains that a bipartisan effort to pass amnesty was rejected twice in recent years -- and given the current economic climate and higher unemployment rate among American workers, he does not expect a different result now. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 13. Good for Democrats. BAd for the US. We border a Catholic Nation that overwhelmingly votes DNC.
#3. To: WhiteSands (#1) I agree, yet all this was started by Carl Rove and George Bush. You might remember that the Republicans nearly got this thing passed. You might also remember this famous GWB phrase: "Family values don't stop at the Rio Grande River". How do you explain that?
#8. To: Bickus Dickus (#3) You might also remember this famous GWB phrase: "Family values don't stop at the Rio Grande River". And: "hard workers" "doing the jobs Americans won't do" "just trying to feed their families" "Muslims are a peaceful people"
#9. To: Moderate Mammal (#8) Most people seem to have forgotten that Bush started his administration with an amnesty plan. That pesky 9/11 thing just postponed it. From 2000. "George W. Bush endorses the "demographic revolution" that Bill Clinton said he hoped would end "European culture" in America, the GOP presidential hopeful went on to call for a lifting of the legal limits on immigration. In an interview ignored by the liberal press, as well as his GOP rivals, Bush told the editorial board of the Cedar Rapids Gazette, that "we ought to increase legal immigration." Bush said advocates of immigration reform represent the "xenophobic dark side of American politics," and derided them as "folk's who want to isolate America." He expressed sympathy for aliens who come to America to take jobs. "Family values don't stop at the Rio Grande River," he said. "If you're a mother and dad, and you got kids to feed, and you're making 50 cents and you see someone in Iowa making $50, and you care about those kids, you're coming." Bush suggested that because Americans aren't skilled enough to handle the demands of an economy driven by high-tech industries, "we ought to increase legal immigration for our country's advantage. The high-tech world that we are now dominate is dependent on educated folks, but we're short of workers. It is to our advantage to encourage high-powered, smart people to come into this country," he said. He did not say, when questioned by Craig Nelson, an immigration-reform activist at an Iowa rally, how many more immigrants over current level he intends to bring into the U.S., if elected. When asked about "chain migration," he said he was unaware of it. Bush said if elected president he would not use U.S. troops to defend America's borders against illegal aliens and terrorists, because "Mexico's our neighbor and friend." Bush apparently agrees with Republican pollster, Lance Tarrance, who stated, "We have now moved from the southern strategy...to a Hispanic strategy." National Republican chairman Jim Nicholson, told the Washington Times that "Hispanics are to the elections of 2000 what 'soccer moms' were to the election of 1996. By "soccer moms," Nicholoson was referring to white suburban married female voters. Nicholson said the party will go after the Hispanic vote with Spanish language print advertising and radio and television spot announcements. The new strategy man require it to adopt an anti-white strategy. Eddie Mahe, a right-wing political consultant to the Republican National Committee, said the party will undertake "deep commitment" to the Hispanic community by recruiting Hispanics instead of whites on the staffs of state parties and elected Republican officials." I really don't understand the hatred for President Black Bush by Repulicans. He's doing everything the Republicans cheered about when Bush did it.
#13. To: Bickus Dickus (#9) (Edited) Bush said if elected president he would not use U.S. troops to defend America's borders against illegal aliens and terrorists, because "Mexico's our neighbor and friend."
Can you provide proof he said this?
Replies to Comment # 13. There are no replies to Comment # 13.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 13. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|