What Compromise?
From the AP:
So here we have two sides.
One side is for border enforcement first. The other side is for amnesty and then (maybe) border enforcement.
The disAssociated Press is saying that giving the amnesty side everything they want is a compromise. I always thought that a compromise was finding some middle ground that everyone can agree with; not one side giving up their principles, which is how I see rewarding lawbreakers by giving them amnesty plus citizenship just because so many of them broke the law.
I would think that a compromise would be more like doing something in-between. For example I could see border security, comprehensive internal enforcement, and increased legal immigration being something both sides could walk away with and feel good about.
President Bush is dead wrong on this issue. If he prevails the Republican Party majority is finished in November.
On the other hand they can win by making themselves the legal immigration party.
Bush Urges Compromise on Immigration Bill
President Bush pressed Congress on Thursday to pass a comprehensive immigration bill that provides a chance at citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants already in the country.
Bush's speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was intended to build momentum for Senate and House negotiators to resolve passionate disputes and produce a compromise. The two houses passed sharply different versions of the legislation.
The House bill generally is limited to border enforcement and cracking down on employers who hire illegal immigrants. The Senate version would tighten border security, offer a guest worker program to bring in new foreign workers and provide a chance at citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants already in the country.
"The United States Congress needs to pass a comprehensive bill," the president said. Bush said any legislation must include a temporary worker program and the opportunity for citizenship.
Bush said illegal immigration has put pressure on U.S. schools and hospitals, spawned more crime and caused other problems.
So here we have two sides.
One side is for border enforcement first. The other side is for amnesty and then (maybe) border enforcement.
The disAssociated Press is saying that giving the amnesty side everything they want is a compromise. I always thought that a compromise was finding some middle ground that everyone can agree with; not one side giving up their principles, which is how I see rewarding lawbreakers by giving them amnesty plus citizenship just because so many of them broke the law.
I would think that a compromise would be more like doing something in-between. For example I could see border security, comprehensive internal enforcement, and increased legal immigration being something both sides could walk away with and feel good about.
President Bush is dead wrong on this issue. If he prevails the Republican Party majority is finished in November.
On the other hand they can win by making themselves the legal immigration party.
