Mel Martinez opposed illegal alien amnesty... in 2004

Posted Wed, May 17, 2006 at 10:45 pm

Just as Harry Reid changed his mind from supporting America's borders into supporting massive illegal immigration, Mel Martinez (R-FL) seems to have done a 180, and much more recently. From October 24, 2004:

Our immigration policy should first and foremost ensure the security of our nation and those individuals posing a terrorist threat should be prevented from entering our country. I strongly oppose amnesty for illegal aliens.

Nowadays he's the author of the massive illegal alien amnesty known as Hagel-Martinez. Of course, he'll say it isn't amnesty, but if something acts like an amnesty and is seen as an amnesty by hundreds of millions of people around the world, it's an amnesty.

Tags: 
mel martinez
harry reid

Comments

Fred Dawes (not verified)

Fri, 05/19/2006 - 17:28

people can yell all day long, the system has made its deal with the drug dealers from mexico city, you may as well just start calling the PLACE The former USA. 70 OUT OF 100 WANT MEXICO AND THE THIRD WORLD HERE. What's the point but someone will start to get out of line soon, if you know what i mean?

Hal (not verified)

Thu, 05/18/2006 - 06:42

I have found some sites that provide the information I was asking for:
On the Amendment (Vitter Amdt. No. 3963 )
Right Side of the Rainbow

Hal (not verified)

Thu, 05/18/2006 - 06:22

Does anyone know a site that tells which Senators voted for and against which ammendments? There have been a couple votes on amnesty in the last couple days:

from michellemalkin.com:

"The Senate defeated, 55 to 40, a proposal by Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican of Georgia, that lawmakers demand that border-security measures be in place before beginning a guest-worker program of the kind envisioned by President Bush."

from Senate OKs Border Fence, Backs Citizenship

"Vitter led the drive to strip from the bill a provision giving an eventual chance at citizenship to illegal immigrants who have been in the country more than two years. His attempt failed, 66-33, at the hands of a bipartisan coalition, and the provision survived"

Michelle Malkin gave a list of votes for the first provision, but I can't find anything for the second.

Thanks.

eh (not verified)

Thu, 05/18/2006 - 02:40

I think you will never get people who back "earned legalization" to agree that it is equivalent to amnesty: They always attach conditions to the "earned legalization", and if these are, or seem the least bit, punitive, e.g. paying back or presumed to be owed taxes (!), or even a fine, then this is deemed a punishment or penalty for any crimes committed (entering illegally, working illegally, etc) and so it does not count as amnesty.

If it is OK for someone to reverse their opinion in the other direction, i.e. this does not mean they are a hypocrite, then doing so in the wrong (IMO) direction has to be OK too.