← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Chaucer
Thread ID: 11598 | Posts: 11 | Started: 2003-12-25
2003-12-25 00:23 | User Profile
This is un****ingbelievable!!! They just had a long ass article in the Washington Post about their plans for amnesty on X-MAS eve, nonetheless. What a sneaky cunt, huh? The article says it was all Rove too. Although, I utterly opposed to legalizing those dirty mestizos, it should certainly help to awaken a few. So disappointing. Amazing how there is virtually no common sense left in ââ¬Åourââ¬Â leadership. This should surely help to propel the death of this Country. I can't believe my relatives sacrificed their blood for this country.
Here is the article.
====================================================== THE WASHINGTON POST STORY ====================================================== Immigration Reform on Bush Agenda
By Mike Allen
President Bush plans to kick off his reelection year by proposing a program that would make it easier for immigrants to work legally in the United States, in what would constitute the most significant changes to immigration law in 18 years, Republican officials said yesterday.
Lobbyists working with the White House said Bush is developing a plan that would allow immigrants to cross the border legally if jobs are waiting for them. The sources said the administration also wants to provide a way for some undocumented workers in the United States to move toward legal status.
Bush will try to make the plan more palatable to conservatives by including stricter entry controls, including increased use of technology at the border and steps toward better enforcement of current visa restrictions and reporting requirements, sources said.
Bush said at his year-end news conference last week that he was preparing to send Congress recommendations for an "immigration policy that helps match any willing employer with any willing employee." He said he is "firmly against blanket amnesty," or a mass legalization. An estimated 8 million undocumented people live in the United States. At least half of them are Mexican, authorities said.
White House aides would not provide details of the proposal, but the Republican officials said it draws on, among other sources, a bill introduced by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). It would create a Web-based job registry, to be run by the Labor Department. Employers would post job opportunities that would be available first to U.S. workers and then to prospective immigrants, who would be allowed to come under a new visa for temporary workers.
The other half of the program would be what Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge referred to earlier this month as "some kind of legal status" for undocumented workers in this country. The sources said White House officials were more skeptical about this idea than about the temporary-worker program, but they concluded that they needed a response to the large population of undocumented workers for the plan to be credible and for Bush to get credit from Hispanic voters.
The blueprint is the most ambitious of its kind since a bill signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986 that offered legal status to millions of illegal immigrants who had moved to the United States before 1982 and imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hired illegal immigrants.
The White House plan is being designed by Bush's senior adviser, Karl Rove, in consultation with the domestic policy staff. Sources said the White House's biggest concern is that the new mechanism not penalize people who had followed the law and reward those who had not. McCain's plan, which was introduced in the House by Reps. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), tries to mitigate that problem by creating a new type of visa for previously undocumented workers who would be allowed to live in the United States legally for three years. Then the workers could apply for the temporary worker visa, which would be the path to a green card, or legal permanent residency. That would amount to a three-year advantage for those who entered legally.
The Republican officials said that rather than proposing specific legislation, Bush may issue broad principles that would become part of what campaign officials call the "compassion agenda."
Administration officials said Bush will present his proposal, which is still being refined, in the second week of January, shortly before traveling to Monterrey, Mexico, for a two-day summit of leaders from throughout the Americas.
The proposal is crucial to Bush's relationship with Mexican President Vicente Fox, which was warm in Bush's first year in office but soured after he postponed any relaxation of immigration laws and Fox opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. The two leaders began repairing the relationship during a meeting in October at an international economic summit in Thailand.
Bush, who said during his campaign that "family values don't stop at the Rio Grande," had been heading toward seeking an overhaul of immigration laws during his first year in office. On Sept. 6, 2001, Fox said during a White House visit that he wanted broad changes in U.S. immigration law within a year, and Bush said he hoped to "accommodate my friend."
But the plans were scuttled after the terrorist attacks five days later turned the government's attention toward restricting access to the country rather than easing it. Bush said in October 2002 that some noncitizens had "taken advantage" of America's "generous" immigration rules.
Some conservative lawmakers remain adamantly opposed to any changes that could be portrayed as encouraging immigration, and some members of the Republican congressional leadership are leery of the idea, making its outlook on Capitol Hill uncertain. But presidential advisers said they believe that Hispanic voters, one of the targets for Bush's reelection campaign, will give him credit for pushing for the changes even if nothing is enacted before the election.
Kolbe said in a telephone interview that "there's a mood for the first time since 9/11 that we have to take a look at this problem rather than just hardening the borders." He added, "The president's involvement will be critical."
A House GOP leadership aide, who insisted on anonymity, said the leaders are willing to work with Bush but think it will be a hard sell for rank-and-file members who are concerned that the plan could take jobs away from constituents. "The economic piece of it is now much more of a problem than your traditional xenophobia-type objections," the aide said.
Cecilia Muñoz, vice president for policy at the National Council of La Raza, a civil rights organization, said the danger is that Bush will propose something "that's going to sound vast and historic but that he knows can't get enacted next year."
"If what the White House proposes is credible, there's likely to be a warm response," Muñoz said. "As long as we get results, we're not going to be picky about the motive."
The proposal planned by the White House has much in common with plans that have been offered by some of the Democratic presidential candidates, most of which provide for a route to legalization for undocumented workers who have been in the country for five or six years, have a work history and can pass a background check.
Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.) calls his the Earned Legalization and Family Reunification program. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) has called immigration reform "another broken promise" by Bush. Former Vermont governor Howard Dean told the Arizona Republic's editorial board that he favors earned legalization for undocumented workers who have been in the country for some time and have committed no crimes, but he sounded a note of skepticism about a guest-worker program like that proposed by McCain.
The Democrats have frequently highlighted their immigration plans in debates. A leading Bush adviser said that, given the crucial swing vote Hispanics could provide next November, "the White House feels it's got to get its irons in the fire now."
2003-12-25 01:04 | User Profile
"Hey, we didn't sneak anything by the American (white) people! We told you what we were doing ... we did ... we got the message out on ... Christmas Eve. Something wrong with that?"
They must sit in their offices and laugh their asses off. For now.
2003-12-25 03:13 | User Profile
The Chimp & his faithful lackey "Smegmo" Rove, McCain the Evil Dwarf, No-Brows Gephardt: not a dime's worth of difference between them on any of the issues that matter to White America. God, do I hate all of the f-cking scum....
Here's hoping Santa repays the dogs for this "Christmas gift" by putting turd-sized lumps of coal in their stockings.
2003-12-25 04:10 | User Profile
The bastards won't stop until someone puts their heads on pikes.
Let's hope it happens within our lifetimes.
2003-12-25 04:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]The bastards won't stop until someone puts their heads on pikes.
Let's hope it happens within our lifetimes.[/QUOTE] Heads on pikes? Sounds like a good one.. A Boy who plead poverty in a working class area of St. Louis MO. got elected to congress over 20 years ago, and sold U.S. out, now with with his clit licking shemale daughter speaking for daddy, who is really running for the V.P. position, but he must be feeling his years of rear licking is going to really pay off as I read he built a Mansion on the N.C. coast with a 16 car garage.. Not sure if it was 16, but allot.. Point is every state capital, is full of bums that can't wait to get on D.C. gravy train too, and get their life time meal ticket.. They should all be sent to a prison full of Wonderful and blessed Congoids and Metizo's for a year, and then all put on an isolated Island together for rest of their rear ending lives. How's that a Christmas wish? Ha.....
2003-12-25 15:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Smedley Butler][url]http://www.vdare.com/roberts/injustices.htm[/url] Here is more evidence the system is more severely NOT about justice.. Just open borders.[/QUOTE]
It's all so transparent. Our Marxist masters are brazenly ignoring the law - I mean just spitting on the entire concept of rule of law and national sovereignty - by engineering a silent invasion in order to dilute whites and tip the balance of voting power in our democracy in their favour.
And then after they've accomplished that feat, they'll yell "democracy" and "rule of law" in allowing this vast block of parasites huge increases in the public dole and more discriminatory laws against whites.
There's a scene in the recent film "To Kill a King" where Cromwell wins the battle and convenes Parliament. King Charles then promptly BRIBES all the MP's who then vote nearly unanimously to unwind the results of the Revolution. King Charles then gladly pointed at the "democratic" vote of Parliament to justify his continued tyrranical rule.
Cromwell wouldn't take part in that sort of three-card-monty sham, and the rest is history. While I find it difficult to justify the Great Protector's more severe actions (especially in Ireland, where he committed unspeakable atrocities), I can only agree that he was not bound to honor a decision of Parliament when that decision was based on a negation of the very underpinnings of Parliament. Cromwell was a deeply moral man, IMHO (that's what makes him and other great Christian leaders so bloody dangerous), and he understood that morality derives from the natural law. Nobody is bound to pay lip service to a sham of the law.
It's the same thing here. The subverters of democracy - the entire treason lobby - will not be heard to point at "democracy" and the "rule of law" after they've done everything they could to subvert these institutions in America. We are not bound by any such result. We need not respect the decisions of our legislatures and our courts when they've been jury-rigged against us in defiance of the law.
Screw that. I think we really have to ask whether we've reached the point where the institutions of our own government retain any moral authority over us.
Walter
2003-12-25 18:00 | User Profile
America is a unique country in the sense that its prosperity and effectively monopolized media have allowed its government opely lie and work against the people it supposedly represents without facing any scrutiny or unrest. It's on the level of mathematical accuracy that the apparatchiks can gauge the cattle reaction through research and polling, and calculate EXACTLY what they can get away with and HOW. There is no risk involved. Just like there is no risk involved when slaughtering cattle. After all, the cattle won't revolt while it's being fed, and the slaughter is so far in the future it can be ignored.
2003-12-25 19:51 | User Profile
Why do you suppose Bush is trying to push through an amnesty for illegal aliens? Its because the GOP feels that their future is dependent upon capturing the Hispanic vote because of the demographic change. Why is it necessary to win the Hispanic vote? It is because access to state power in your country lies in democratic elections. Thus, the essence of this problem lies in structure of your government. It is the structure of your government that is determining the actions of the two parties. You are also right when you say that one day once the population shifts the democracy ideology is going to be used against you to dispossess the European population. So, when go to the bottom of this question, either you or the 'democracy' ideology and 'the rule of law' are going to have to go.
2003-12-25 20:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Metternich]Why do you suppose Bush is trying to push through an amnesty for illegal aliens? Its because the GOP feels that their future is dependent upon capturing the Hispanic vote because of the demographic change. Why is it necessary to win the Hispanic vote? It is because access to state power in your country lies in democratic elections. Thus, the essence of this problem lies in structure of your government. It is the structure of your government that is determining the actions of the two parties. You are also right when you say that one day once the population shifts the democracy ideology is going to be used against you to dispossess the European population. So, when go to the bottom of this question, either you or the 'democracy' ideology and 'the rule of law' are going to have to go.[/QUOTE]
Good point, and I agree.
But the understanding that the people have a right to revolution - it being understood that "the people" means a "nation" in the traditional sense as a group sharing common blood and culture - is deeply embedded in our founding documents. Lincoln talked about the right of revolution.
We're not a "democracy" - at least in the sense commonly understood. It was universally understood that this was a white country, by and for whites. This "democracy" ideology is a latter-day infection, actually is quite foreign to us. I agree that we need to lose the whole idea real soon.
Rule of law we keep.
Walter
2003-12-25 20:12 | User Profile
I don't see how under any circumstance the present government can be preserved. The 14th Amendment of your Constitution gave citizenship to Negroes. Legally, they are just as much a part of 'the people' as whites in your country. Your citizenship laws have also since been changed so now mestizos and asiatics can become citizens too. In older days, it was simply taken for granted that the United States was a white country. Whiteness was not incorporated into your Constitution, unfortunately, simply because it was so self-evident.
There will have to be a disruption of the 'rule of law' in order for any real change to take place. At this point, it is impossible for you to ever vote yourself out of this situation. The current government will have to be overthrown and supplanted. The provisional government will also need broad and sweeping powers in order to make the necessary changes. This is why I favour a commissarial dictatorship. Once a normal state of affairs is restored, it will then be possible to begin to restore civil liberties.
2003-12-26 07:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Metternich]I don't see how under any circumstance the present government can be preserved. The 14th Amendment of your Constitution gave citizenship to Negroes. Legally, they are just as much a part of 'the people' as whites in your country. Your citizenship laws have also since been changed so now mestizos and asiatics can become citizens too. In older days, it was simply taken for granted that the United States was a white country. Whiteness was not incorporated into your Constitution, unfortunately, simply because it was so self-evident.
There will have to be a disruption of the 'rule of law' in order for any real change to take place. At this point, it is impossible for you to ever vote yourself out of this situation. The current government will have to be overthrown and supplanted. The provisional government will also need broad and sweeping powers in order to make the necessary changes. This is why I favour a commissarial dictatorship. Once a normal state of affairs is restored, it will then be possible to begin to restore civil liberties.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps we're getting hung up on terms, but the point I'm trying to make is that exercising our right of revolution - which is a central part of our law - is not a denial but rather the very stuff of the Rule of Law.
Whether or how the Law will be vindicated ultimately, I can't say. But clearly revolution is lawful under the right circumstances. The question is "are we there yet?"
I'm merely posing the question, as much to myself and to others: have we reached the point where the "usurpations" (Declaration of Independence) of our own government have become so unbearable, such that we have not only the right but the duty to posterity to overthrow this current order?
Actually, posing the question is probably enough. Please don't answer. I just ask that we think it over, in view of the legalized slaughter of our children (and those of blacks and browns), the unopposed silent invasion of our sovereign territory through massive scofflaw immigration policies, the hijacking of our foreign policy by a small but tightly-knit minority including the waging of illegal foreign wars, exhorbitant and unequal taxation via a selectively-enforced tax code of Talmudic complexity, legal discrimination against us in the land of our ancestors, the mockery of the bedrock institution of marriage through its conflation with sodomy, the public promotion of immorality of all kinds, and the list goes on and on.
I don't know, but I believe that question must be asked whether our Founders would have found all of this as intolerable as King George's taxes on tea.
Walter