white house wants 10K cap eliminated
- Thread starter Gilbert
- Start date
Lazerthegreat
Registered Users (C)
Politicians are always creating rhetoric about something. Gilbert, Realistically if this were to go into effect, how long can it actually take before cap is actually removed and all Asylee are given adjustments
hampton8844
Registered Users (C)
Lazerthegreat said:
It will pass the House TODAY and go to the Senate. It will be then up to the liberals to decide if will be passed on a fast track or not. Though with Bush's personal support, Bill Frist should be able to ram this through if he wants.
Well, this is certainly good news. I want to credit the man for doing the right thing. Even the most cruel people can show kindness at time. I do not want to question his intentions, even if they are not good. Rather I want to commend him for making this statement. The bad news is, his party will stifle his efforts.Gilbert said:
I just read the HR 418 bill, and it doesn't mention anything about eliminating the Asylee cap. Maybe I am missing something - because the White House memo clearly states that this is included in the bill.
Now we need for the White House to introduce a bill that will make PR family-based petitions part of the immediate family category.
Now we need for the White House to introduce a bill that will make PR family-based petitions part of the immediate family category.
LolaLi said:I just read the HR 418 bill, and it doesn't mention anything about eliminating the Asylee cap. Maybe I am missing something - because the White House memo clearly states that this is included in the bill.
Now we need for the White House to introduce a bill that will make PR family-based petitions part of the immediate family category.
It was not included in the original bill. The original bill did not contain a single pro immigration provision.
When House Republicans asked the White House to support their bill, the White House brought up the asylee cap issue. Both sides apparently striked a deal. Bush is now supporting HR 418 in exchange for the elimination of the cap. The formal amendment to eliminate the cap was introduced on the House floor today.
hampton8844
Registered Users (C)
shamshon said:
You should be more worried about the behavior of your party, the liberals. The bill will be passed today with almost uanimous Republican support. But the Democrats are against it because they do not want to crackdown on people who are here in violation of the law and those who want to submit fake stories on the asylum forms.
I challenge you to bring me one democratic senator who is against this (with the exception of Hillary who want to get elected as president in 2008." Also check these links to see how "unanimous" republicans arehampton8844 said:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010305E.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/21/p...&en=2d7cf267fe3b89d0&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040205-115100-7758r.htm
I hope you wake up one day and realize that the GOP is conservative and conservative means keeping things as they are and immigrants challenge the status quo and they are a pain for conservatives.
hampton8844
Registered Users (C)
And I challenge you to turn on your TV NOW and see the debate on CSPAN. You will see that Republicans are in favor of eliminating the asylee cap while you democrats are in opposition because the bill would punish people who are here in violation of the the law. We are now talking about the cap being eliminated outright. All those years we had only hoped the cap would go up to say 25,000. If the liberals stopped blocking this bill this would be a milestone for asylees.
We conservatives are problem solvers. When Bush became aware of the cap issue, he attended to it immediately. And now we are on the verge of passing a bill to address the situation. Bill Clinton did not do a darn thing about it while in office. All liberals do is talk, no results.
When this bill gets to the Senate, you will see liberals lining up against it.
We conservatives are problem solvers. When Bush became aware of the cap issue, he attended to it immediately. And now we are on the verge of passing a bill to address the situation. Bill Clinton did not do a darn thing about it while in office. All liberals do is talk, no results.
When this bill gets to the Senate, you will see liberals lining up against it.
shamshon said:
Last edited by a moderator:
TortFeasor
Registered Users (C)
Why the link?
It is great that the White House and Congress are considering to remove the annual cap. This is a testament to the effect of continued advocacy by individuals and organizations to bring the plight of asylees into the forefront.
I am disturbed though, as to why the removal of the cap will have to be linked with H.R. 418 which contains troubling issues for future asylum seekers. Furthermore, the bill seeks to remove common sense solutions to the problems and risks posed by undocumented persons who are forced to drive without licenses or insurance.
Of course, we can take the view that so long as we are able to adjust our status, screw all others! But I prefer to take a studied and principled position.
Look at this troubling provision that diminishes the role of courts to review deportation decisions made by the INS or immigration judges denying asylum because the applicant did not bring "corroborating evidence": "No court shall reverse a determination made by a trier of fact with respect to the availability of corroborating evidence, as described in section 208(b)(1)(B) or 241(b)(3)(C), unless the court finds that a reasonable trier of fact is compelled to conclude that such corroborating evidence is unavailable." What is "corroborating evidence?" - a notarized affidavit from the torturer that he will kill the applicant if he shows up again?
A better (and I am sure not a popular position at the heat of this moment) is:
1. De-link the annual cap issue from Sensenbrenner's xenophobic drive. Adopt a separate law to remove the annual cap.
2. Ensure that future asylees get the benefit of the protections we all received from the system so far.
3. Make our roads and highways safe by allowing undocumented persons to get licenses and insurance.
It is great that the White House and Congress are considering to remove the annual cap. This is a testament to the effect of continued advocacy by individuals and organizations to bring the plight of asylees into the forefront.
I am disturbed though, as to why the removal of the cap will have to be linked with H.R. 418 which contains troubling issues for future asylum seekers. Furthermore, the bill seeks to remove common sense solutions to the problems and risks posed by undocumented persons who are forced to drive without licenses or insurance.
Of course, we can take the view that so long as we are able to adjust our status, screw all others! But I prefer to take a studied and principled position.
Look at this troubling provision that diminishes the role of courts to review deportation decisions made by the INS or immigration judges denying asylum because the applicant did not bring "corroborating evidence": "No court shall reverse a determination made by a trier of fact with respect to the availability of corroborating evidence, as described in section 208(b)(1)(B) or 241(b)(3)(C), unless the court finds that a reasonable trier of fact is compelled to conclude that such corroborating evidence is unavailable." What is "corroborating evidence?" - a notarized affidavit from the torturer that he will kill the applicant if he shows up again?
A better (and I am sure not a popular position at the heat of this moment) is:
1. De-link the annual cap issue from Sensenbrenner's xenophobic drive. Adopt a separate law to remove the annual cap.
2. Ensure that future asylees get the benefit of the protections we all received from the system so far.
3. Make our roads and highways safe by allowing undocumented persons to get licenses and insurance.
hampton8844
Registered Users (C)
And you are confusing the asylee cap issue with a broad amnesty. As conservatives we do not want to reward illegal behavior by handling out legal status to people.
shamshon said:
TortFeasor
Registered Users (C)
What a joke?
Who the hell do you think you are talking about "rewarding illegal behavior with amnesty?" What a preposterous position.
Each of us (at least as asylees) had been illegal or bordered on illegality technically before we adjusted.
Do not sound too pristine and prickly like the natives. Unless you are a native and is strolling around here to "check us out"!
Who the hell do you think you are talking about "rewarding illegal behavior with amnesty?" What a preposterous position.
Each of us (at least as asylees) had been illegal or bordered on illegality technically before we adjusted.
Do not sound too pristine and prickly like the natives. Unless you are a native and is strolling around here to "check us out"!
hampton8844 said:
hampton8844
Registered Users (C)
We have been deeply disturbed by the level of fraud in the asylum system. Staff members of the judiciary committees on Capitol Hill have formal and informal liaison meetings with DHS officials. For instance they are certainly aware of cases in which former asylees happily return home or use their national passports. We strongly feel that to maintain the integrity of the asylum system (and vital support of the American public for that system) we need to do everything we can to combat fraud. We also surveyed the asylum rules prevalent in our fellow industrial democracies. Their (with the exception of Canada's) procedural safeguards against fraud are far more vigorous than ours. We a nation have to strike the balance between control and compassion. In the reasoned opinion of the majority staff of the committees, more sustained control over asylum eligibility is badly needed.
TortFeasor said:
Last edited by a moderator:
hampton8844
Registered Users (C)
TortFeasor said:
What is preposterous is the proposal to legalize the status of people who violated blatantly our immigration laws, especially when we are at war with foreign-born terrorists. Every society has rules and we have ours. There have to be negative consequences if someone broke immigration rules. As a signatory to international treaties we are willing to excuse violations if the person is fleeing real persecution. But under this President and this Congress we simply will not hand out green cards to illegal aliens as if nothing has happened. This could only occur if we were to adopt very strong measures against future lawbreakers. The 1986 amnesty was premised on preventing future illegal immigration. Unfortunately that premise did not work out. Any solution to the current illegal immigration problem (which is separate and distinct from the asylee cap issue) must contain effective enforcement means to restore the integrity of our borders.
And a condition for admission to membership in the American family is to think about issues from the perspective of the good of the collective whole rather than from an individual/parochial perspective.
Last edited by a moderator:
I read today that the 19 hijackers had 63, yes 63 Legal DL in their possession and this bill would stop that also would make the highways safer unless same want us to believe by stopping a bad driver with many point in a state DL to go a get a clean D license in another state.
I been without a license for many months in the winter (in Conn. before adj. and before moving to Florida) and had to walk in the snow to get to work and I know how valuable the DL is but if a law would prevent some animal like the 19 above from blowing another building I'll support it 100%.
I been without a license for many months in the winter (in Conn. before adj. and before moving to Florida) and had to walk in the snow to get to work and I know how valuable the DL is but if a law would prevent some animal like the 19 above from blowing another building I'll support it 100%.
TortFeasor
Registered Users (C)
Who is "we"?
Please define "we".
Please define "we".
hampton8844 said:
I am amazed at how some peoples attitudes change once they get adjusted. Its as though they completely forgot or erased from memory what it was like to be stuck waiting for adjustment.
This is just an observation and is not intended for a specific individual. Let us all support one another on here - regardless of whether or not we have been adjusted.
Being an asylee is like being in a fraternity (ironically)...once you are a member it is hard to bow out.
This is just an observation and is not intended for a specific individual. Let us all support one another on here - regardless of whether or not we have been adjusted.
Being an asylee is like being in a fraternity (ironically)...once you are a member it is hard to bow out.