Saturday, May 19, 2007
|
|
Immigration Reform And The GOP
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
12:43 PM
|
|
If you are "deport-them-all" anti-illegal immigration absolutist, you won't like this post. But if, like the vast majority of Republicans, you understand the need to regularize most of the millions of people in the country illegally, read on.
First, read my interview with Tony Snow for background.
Next, understand that Senator Jon Kyl is a great American who in essence volunteered to conduct the political equivalent of a suicide mission, and that Tony Snow has been tasked with defending the result. Both are superb public servants and great conservatives, as is the president that Tony works for and with whom Senator Kyl is a partner. The fiasco of the past week may have been a necessary part of achieving clarity on the bill, and Senator Kyl’s request for a close reading of the bill is one every serious conservative ought to grant..
The extraordinary blowback against the Senate "deal" has its source in three realities: First, John McCain issued one of his famous diktats which was guaranteed to rend the GOP and he did it with the usual “screw you” tone (a tone he has taken to using with his Senate colleagues.) Dean’s got a theory on why Senator McCain acts this way, which is interesting –even compelling-- but also irrelevant to the damage the Arizona senator routinely inflicts on the GOP.
In addition to the terrible branding the bill got thanks to Senator McCain, the key issues for more than a majority of the conservatives were compromised away –border security and citizenship as opposed to residency. Some additional problems come with the award of social security benefits for years worked illegally in the country, etc.
Finally, the arrogance of announcing that a deal has been reached when it hadn’t even been written combined with the jam down schedule for Senate consideration of the vast bill struck many as the ultimate insult: Here is a vital bill of incredible importance on a subject that has been passionately debated for years, and the people aren’t even invited to the debate or given the text on around which the debate revolves. That is not how a republic operates, especially for people who take their citizenship seriously.
So, can the situation be salvaged? Only if the Democrats want a bill more than they want some short-term political advantage, and only if the White House realizes how badly it managed the rollout.
First, if Senator Kyl is willing to take another one for the team, he has to announce the revisions in the collective GOP position made in response to the tidal wave of criticism. Senator Kyl alone has the sort of standing with the GOP base as to make the revisions credible. If Senator Kyl comes forward with a half dozen revisions which the GOP will insist on, including construction of the entire fence and additional barriers that were authorized last year’s law prior to the beginning of the “paperwork period” for regularization and very clear, very easily quoted language that citizenship is not open to anyone who entered the country illegally for at least the 18 years an ordinary American born here must wait to exercise his or her franchise, the DOA bill will begin to show signs of life. The benefits question also looms large, as does the national security question: We should not treat Mexicans and Central American illegal immigrants the same as young men from Arab or Central Asian countries, period. This means a deeper, thorough background check of those who come from lands with very well-developed jihadist networks, but we cannot reasonably do anything else if national security matters. We cannot pass over the prospect that jihadist sleeper cells are in this country illegally that would be legitimized and empowered by the proposed "compromise." Similarly, the proposed expansion of the Border Patrol is simply not enough –I hope to get permission to post an e-mail below that I received from a Border Patrol agent on this subject. Enough of incrementalism –get the force to its necessary size for an era of global terror networks,
Finally, the debate on the Senate floor and the final version of the bill that will go to the House should take place before cloture is voted upon. Before the final Senate version is agreed to the Senate shoudl not guarantee passage over the cloture hurdle so often employed by the Democrats over the first six years of the Bush Administration. Here is where Republicans expect Leader McConnell to insist on the rights of the Senate minority to the full extent they were employed by the Democrats. Republicans have long insisted that filibusters of legislation are unobjectionable as they are rooted so deeply in Senate history, though filibusters of judicial nominees are not. Leader McConnell will earn extraordinary stature among the party loyalists if he demands and receives the very tools that the Dems so often employed during their minority years.
There is an urgent need to regularize the illegal population for a variety of reasons, and to assure the flow of legal immigrants into the country, a flow that has usually been welcomed and absorbed. The GOP rejects the natavism of the extreme right, of course, and there are compelling reasons to endorse guest worker programs and specialized skill visas. There is also a widely-held belief in compassionate treatment of the long resident illegal and their families. The e-mail from one illegal, posted below, testifies to the extraordinary complexity of the status of the millions who are watching and waiting for this debate to conclude in a fair result.
It is possible that Dems would not welcome a fair resolution of this situation, one that is urgently needed. But if that is the case, the GOP cannot simply abandon the core beliefs of the large majority of its members in order to get something done. President Bush is to the left of his party on this issue, and his stewardship of the party ought to oblige him to respect and insist upon the changes noted above. To proceed with John McCain’s jam down will have far-reaching an terrible effects on the party. The fact that both Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson denounced the deal is the truest signal of where the party is, and that signal should be noted and absorbed if the president wants his work of his eight years to be continued by a responsible successor in 2009.
Here’s where I will post the e-mail from the Border Patrol Agent when I get back his permission to do so:
[E-mail from Tucson BP Agent]
And here’s the e-mail from an illegal immigrant, “Abe”:
Yes, I am an illegal immigrant and my name is Abe. I came here when I was 3 and didn't even need a visa because I was just a child. I found out when I was 16 and wanted to get a drivers license that i was an illegal immigrant and did not have the documents to get one.
My point of view about this immigration bill is that it is not going to reach the president. This bill has been cought between people who for some reason demand more rights for us and those people who just do not want any more immgrants coming to the country. I myself feel that I grew up and was raised american but feel ashamed to be here illegally due to my parents actions. I would ask and like for some kind of immigration status be granted with restrictions but i'm not demanding it. Most people protesting and marching down los angeles are already citizens or premanent residents which do not speak for us. I am not unskilled or a high school drop out like some studies say. I don't understand these studies because they make up numbers about people they are not supposed to be able to find. I'm not here to take jobs americans won't do and i'm not here to get on welfare or use all of the goverment services. As a human i would like someone to help me if i need emergency help but i'm not going to the doctor if i have a cold.
I have been able to work for myself and pay taxes by getting a ITIN and filing a 1099 form because I do computer repair and network installations. I don't get money returned to me and I feel I do pay my fair share of taxes without using goverment services. I also do pay taxes because i think it will help my case if there is a record that shows that i have been paying taxes if i get any immigration status. Most illegals do this for the same reason. I would say a high percentage also speaks spanish and are very well educated but the news and the media only show the farm workers who live in poverty.
Like i said, I don't expect the bill to pass either but i hope there is a chance to have a path to becoming an american and coming out of the shadows. The talking points on tv and radio are kinda misleading. We want to stay informed that's why even illegal immigrants listen to consevative talk radio.
Thanks
Abe.
|
|
And thus begins Hugh's very short march to near total support for the amnesty bill.
I am sure that he will keep minor reservations about the bill in order to claim that he isn't a total dupe, but I think we all know where this is going to end - in Hugh's blind support for the President.
|
|
It sounds like Hugh is calming down (a bit) and backing away (somewhat) from yesterday's rabid, hysterical, breathless rantings--except for his transparent attempt to blame EVERYTHING on McCain while, at the same time completely ignoring Romney's cynical and disingenuous flip-flop on this issue.
Perhaps, we can all take a deep breath and think this through. If you do nothing else today, calm down, take a deep breath and be open-minded just long enough to read today's column by Steve Maloney at
http://camp2008victory.townhall.com/
Here's a sample:
"IMMIGRATION & REPUBLICAN SURVIVAL
Saturday, May 19, 2007 9:17 AM
RED STATE ALERT: CAMPAIGN2008VICTORY OFFERS QUALIFIED SUPPORT TO IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION.
Note: To this point, I’ve said nothing about the proposed legislation on immigration. Unlike, say, Hugh Hewitt, I’d at least like to read the proposal before I condemn it – or, in my case, offer unqualified praise. I’ve been writing recently about “traps” we conservatives fall into, many of them set by the Democrats. When we end up in those traps, we lose elections. Immigration is about a very large issue: whether the Republican Party has a future. I welcome your comments, although I will not respond to hate mail or name-calling.
On the question of immigration, most of you know I’m not a big fan of Robert Novak, who long ago ceased being a “conservative” columnist. Novak has gone through something like total immersion in the Beltway culture, and his writings now seem mainly an effort to avoid offending the DC crowd.
That said, not everything he writes is suspect. In today’s TH, Novak says the following about a meeting of a Republican Study Group: “At a recent internal debate by the conservative House Republican Study Committee, Rep. Bob Inglis of South Carolina warned that the GOP ran the risk of looking like the racist National Party of South Africa on the immigration issue.”
I would ask my fellow conservatives to consider the implications of Rep. Inglis’ comments. He is a conservative Republican. He is NOT a turncoat. He is raising a serious question about the future of the Republican Party.
Frankly, we conservatives are NOT going to get immigration legislation that we like. We are in the minority in the Senate and the House. Many good Republicans, including people like Jon Kyl and John McCain of Arizona, as well as Saxby Chambliss and Jonny Isakson of Georgia, participated in the immigration “compromise.” They aren’t in love with the proposal. They do believe it’s the best we can get. They are very aware we’re in the minority.
When Hugh Hewitt condemns McCain – an authentic American hero – for “McCain-Kennedy” and the so-called “Gang of 14,” Hugh is engaging in what I’ve called “bumper-sticker politics.” He’s playing to the small minority of the country that is truly appalled by the current proposal.
If John McCain, for all his human failings, is not an authentic Republican, then our Party has no future. McCain, unlike, say Mitt Romney, has been pro-life for his entire political career. John McCain, unlike, say, Mitt Romney, was tortured in a North Vietnamese prison for five-and-a-half years. John McCain, along with Rudy Giuliani, has the courage to speak the truth about what’s necessary to win the War on Terror.
Hewitt, who has none of the above credentials, sickens me with his criticism of John McCain. In fact, Senator McCain has criticized Hugh’s favorite candidate, Mitt Romney, for changing his stance just about every important issue. Is McCain wrong on that devastating charge? No, he is right on target.
In 2005, Mitt Romney praised what was known then as McCain-Kennedy, which is basically the same proposal that’s now coming up for a Senate vote. This week, Romney, who’s apparently never held a position he can’t “adjust,” condemned what two years ago he commended.
Frankly, Romney turns my stomach. Hugh Hewitt must have a much stronger stomach than I.
Why is John McCain doing what he’s doing on immigration? To answer that, let’s turn back to Congressman Inglis.
These two good, albeit imperfect, men don’t want the Republican Party to deliver itself a mortal wound. They don’t want the Republican Party to lose – for generations – the votes of people of Hispanic heritage. They don’t want the Republican Party essentially to disappear.
The Republican Party has lost the vote of the second-largest minority group in this country, African-Americans. In national elections, we get perhaps 8%-10% of that group’s ballots.
McCain and Inglis – in contrast to, say, Hugh Hewitt – don’t want us to lose for generations the votes of the LARGEST minority group, people of Hispanic descent. Note that I’m NOT talking about Hispanic illegals. I’m talking about Hispanic citizens.
At the same time, we conservatives have fallen behind in the battle for the votes of women, who are NOT a minority when it comes to registered voters. In general, women vote for Democrats nationally by a rate of about 55% to 45%.
The only way Republicans have won if federal and national elections is by getting a huge chunk of the white male vote. In recent history, we’ve gotten nearly two-out-of-three votes from American male Caucasians. In 2006, we didn’t do nearly as well with white males, and we suffered disastrous losses.
When the Hugh Hewitt types are condemning McCain [whom I don’t support for the presidency], perhaps they might meditate on some of the realities people like McCain and Inglis are raising.
No, most conservatives are NOT anti-immigrant. But some people who get portrayed as conservatives – Pat Buchanan is one – are in fact anti-immigrant. They don’t like Mexicans. The are nativists, and they do great damage to our Party.
Frankly, the number of minorities in America just reached 100 MILLION. In contrast, a Pat Buchanan is one man who seems bent on outraging minorities in general. I've never heard him say one positive thing about Hispanic immigrants.
Most conservatives are anti-illegals. They want our laws enforced. They want our borders secured. But surveys show that most Hispanics don’t see it that way. They should see it that way, perhaps, but they don’t. They identify with immigrants, legal or illegal.
McCain and Inglis – and Kyl and Chambliss and Isaacson – may be right. This may be the very best deal we can get. If we manage to defeat the proposal in Congress, we could end up with no deal – or, more properly, end up with what we have now, which is a disaster.
If we lose the Hispanic vote for a generation, as we early lost the Blacks and women professionals, our future is extremely bleak. We will cease to be a significant factor in American politics. I don’t know what people like Hewitt think about this situation – if they reflect on it at all.
We can’t win many elections appealing just to the Republican “base,” i.e., to white males. From the evidence available, that base consists of about 30% of American voters. With that base in presidential elections, we can win Utah, Idaho, Mississippi, and maybe Alabama – and that’s about it. We can win perhaps 20 Senate seats and, at most, 100 seats in the House. We would never again have any influence on who’s nominated to the Supreme Court.
A war hero like John McCain sees that future – and it scares the heck out of them. It frightens me, and it should so the same to you. This is not a time for pandering. It is a time for pondering -- and even prayerful reflection.
It’s essential that we conservatives act wisely and practically on the issue of immigration. When conservative heroes, people like McCain, Chambliss, and Kyl, say this is the best deal we can get, let’s not call them turncoats. Let’s consider that they may be right.
Knowing what I know now, I intend to support the legislation proposed. I hope it’s possible to strengthen the enforcement procedures, but this is a lot better than the alternative: nothing."
|
|
I don't want any deal made during this administration, or by this administration.
I want ALL discussions of this issue with this Presidency to end.
The status quo, as injurious as it is, is BETTER than ANY deal cut with this administration.
Allow the issue to play itself out in the Presidential race for 2008.
This is an issue that the American people should speak on, and not narrow interest groups and foaming at the mouth activists.
So my advice is CEASE ALL DISCUSSION of immigration with the George W. Bush White House.
A White House none of us trusts, a White House that has proven itself REPEATEDLY to be clueless and clumsy.
NO DEAL.
So the first order of business is to stop the deal.
Then the second order of business it to stop this poisonous White House from moving from this deal to a second deal, that's just as bad, but with more make-up.
Right now, George W. Bush should be told by the Party to win the war in Iraq, focus all of your attention on that, visit the troops in Iraq monthly, and end once and for all the Iranian Manhattan Project.
THAT'S THE ONLY THING THIS WHITE HOUSE should be doing right now. ANYTHING ELSE, and they prove dangerous to the nation, to the GOP.
ALL OF US have to understand, thoroughly, completely, comprehensively, that ANY domestic bill emerging from this White House will be disastrous.
ANYTHING that push domestically will be poisonous to the Party, and deeply harmful to the country.
George W. Bush and Karl Rove are missiles long ago gone ballistic. Unfortunately, none of us can hit the RED ABORT button. But we can stay deep in our bomb shelter making sure that when those missiles blow up, they won't take any of us down with 'em.
DICTATE to this flawed President that if he wants a legacy, WIN THE CAMPAIGN IN IRAQ.
And that if wants a legacy other than being recalled as America's Chamberlain, then END AND DESTROY TEHRAN'S Manhattan Project.
|
|
|
I can't believe you called us "nativists". So in your mind, we are racists. If you can't understand that the only feature of any comprehensive bill that will be enforced is the amnesty provision, you are either being willfully obtuse or will say anything to get Giuliani or Romney elected. The government is telling us that border enforcement is futile and yet the key to this bill is that in order to enforce the border, we have to grant amnesty? Give us one good reason why, THIS TIME, we can trust the government. Unbelievable. You live her in SoCal. What's the matter with you? Do I have to post those LA Times stats again? There is a steamroller heading your way and even among us TH loyalists, you won't be spared. We are beyond being persuaded at this point. |
|
Hugh, don't try to find some face saving deal for this Presidency.
There is none to be had.
This deal MUST BE STOPPED.
Please don't try to dilute your intense and WELL-DESERVED criticism of this deal, just because some of the President's flackeys got to you, and begged that the President "needed" this deal.
The President's Education deal sucked.
The President's Entitlement deal sucked as well.
The President's deal with Reid whereby he nominated Meirs sucked.
The President has an appalling domestic track record, other than his first term tax cuts.
Ever since his first term, this Presidency has been a nightmare, and there is NO getting away from that.
Right now, this President has effectively declared war on the political prospects of the GOP.
AND WE HAVE TO FIGHT BACK.
This is NO TIME to try to throw this blockhead of a President a lifeline.
Let him drown.
Let him drown, let Rove drown, let Josh Bolton drown, let Tony Snow drown, let everyone of them go to the deep six.
We've a Party to save.
A war to win.
A Presidential race to prepare for.
A nominee to select, ....................
AND A NIGHTMARE to avoid.
George W. Bush declared war on us, not we, him.
This is to the knife, SO FRICKEN BE IT! |
|
Dan wrote: "And that if wants a legacy other than being recalled as America's Chamberlain, then END AND DESTROY TEHRAN'S Manhattan Project."
Now, there's something we can ALL agree on.
Bruce Sherman
Oakland, Oregon |
|
Some of the comments about Republicans being in the minority and we need to take what we can get is crazy. We had the majority until last election in both houses - still nothing to the base's liking got presented - Why? Because we have faced the enemy and it is us! We are fighting our own Republicans on this!
Also, the letter from Abe is an example of why we cannot just offer blanket amnesty. We need to start with good people like he appears to be, here since a child, yet illegal. I would be much more in favor of getting these people out of the shadows first. We need to build on the ones who really feel like they are Americans. |
|
|
I've been completely immunized from fear of "those evil Democrats". How much worse can it be? Both parties end up doing what the Democrats want! At least the Dems say what they want and pursue it relentlessly. The GOP just talks and rolls over. |
|
Phil,
While we may not be in synch on this issue, I do understand your repulsion at Hugh's about-face.
My guess is that Hugh is just following orders from Romney HQ.
Remember, on this issue as with so many others, Romney was "for it before he was against it." Romney specifically defended and supported an even looser, more lenient immigration plan in 2005. Now--conveniently--he's against it.
Romney's strategists are probably now trying to figure out how to "nuance" this issue and play it for maximum political gain. Principle has nothing to do with it. And Hugh is just dutifully following the Romney game plan--as it is evolving hour by hour.
Bruce Sherman
Oakland, Oregon |
|
George Bush should be in Iraq right now, and for the foreseeable future. He shouldn't leave until he is personally assured that the tide has turned.
His legacy, and the fate of our Party is inextricably wrapped up in the fate of this campaign in Iraq.
And he needs to be told by the Party to shut the hell up about immigration, and get himself to Iraq, and make sure that we're going to win.
Moreover, his legacy will be dictated by the Iranian Manhattan Project.
EITHER all of our futures will be lived under the dark, ominous clouds of that Manhattan Project, and ultimately, our lives will be lived against the backdrop of mushroom clouds that indicate the loss of American cities, OR he will seize the issue, show himself a Commander, and end this nightmare once and for all.
He should be told that you have proven yourself a political nightmare, so shut the hell up about immigration, entitlement reform and any other domestic reform.
IRAQ IS WHERE THIS PRESIDENT'S FATE IS GOING TO BE DECIDED.
AND THE GOP AS WELL.
So what the hell is he doing in Washington.
He needs to go to where the battle is.
|
|
Thanks for Bruce's posting of my column today. I do think it's time some of the great poobahs of the blogosphere confront the issues I raised. John McCain, whom I don't support for the presidency, has paid all his dues to the American people, and he doesn't need the support of people who would rather "rub raw the sores of dicontent." The issue for Republicans (and I've been one for a long time, sometimes to the detriment of my career aspirations) is whether we intend to transform ourselves into a contemporary version of the old John Birch Society. Are we supposed to "show" Jon Kyl, Saxby Chambliss, John McCain, and many others how we feel by voting them out of office? Are we going to find enough Ron Pauls to replace them?
I outline a possible scenario in which we have 20 Republican Senators and 100 congressmen. They will spend a great deal of time complaining about the villainous liberals, because that is all they'll have to do in Democrat-dominated houses. As we spend time teaching one another to hate one good candidate after another (including McCain and Giuliani), we smooth the path for President Hillary Clinton, who will presumably reign until 2016. I don't really think we can rely on Ducan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, or Ron Paul to beat her -- or even to win more than a state or two. And what will Mrs. Clinton's immigration policy be? It will consist of putting up 874 huge signs on the border. They will contain these words: "C'mon In, Y'all!" (The y'all part will reflect the Southern accent she's cultivating.)
Also, she might get to appoint three or more judges to the Supreme Court, all of which will drink the Kool-Aid of pro-abortionism.) I believe that's the direction we're going with the anti-McCain, anti-Rudy hysteria. If Romney, an extremely flawed candidate gets the nomination, it may be at a point where he doesn't any longer want it. In my column tomorrow, I'm going to talk about abortion. I believe we conservatives -- and I include myself -- have pursued a disastrous course. The approach we've taken has backfired terribly. It has resulted in the status quo prevailing for a generation, something that's almost hard to imagine occurring. The partial-birth decision was a victory, but it's not much to show for 30 years of shouting slogans and creating bumper-stickers. Right now, the "conservative" approach seems to be a sustained effort to render every viable candidate unelectable. McCain is a hero. Treat him that way, please.
Somehow, the path we're taking -- taking our ball and bat and going home -- doesn't strike me as a wise one. We need a real debate on these issues, my friends. If we continue to sow what we're sowming, truly we shall reap the whirlwind.
steve |
|
|
If you compare Romney's position at the debate to Thursday's statement, the first was a restatement of the bill, the statement rejects the bill. Which one should I believe? I'm moving on to Duncan Hunter, any conservative third party candidate or sitting it out if Fred doesn't step up real very soon. Enough talk Fred. Step up to the plate! |
|
|
All roads lead to Giuliani with you. Smell the coffee. There IS no GOP anymore. I am completely immunized of fear of what a Hillary presidency would be like. We already have it. There is only one party. It's not the illegals that have to step out of the shadows, it's our government. GOP-RIP and take Giuliani and his ilk with you. |
|
Hugh has thrown me for a loop. After a day or two of good to brilliant work, he has made the first move in what I believe is going to be a short process of becoming the President's cheer leader on immigration.
There are two possibilities
1. After yesterday's show Tony Snow and or Kyl had a "conversation" with Hugh resulting in a conversation.
2. The fix was in from the beginning. What better for the pro amnesty group than to have a "center right" talk show host go from 100% against to 99% in favor.
Either way, with transparency, Hugh should disclose what generated this column.
As to Hugh's bringing the racist (nativist) card into the discussion - it is despicable. Hugh should apologize immediately. |
|
Everybody, go read David Frum's take on the immigration deal over at National Review Online.
He calls it as he sees it, and he sees that it's a disaster, in more ways than one.
Linda, you particularly should read it. And you would do well to listen to Mark Levin's broadcast of Thursday and Friday. For he goes into the details of this nightmarish deal. AND LINDA, go read Mark Levin's post on National Review Online today as well. |
|
It's real easy to understand what happened. Somebody from the White House and the RNC got to Hugh, started leaning on him, started begging him, probably more of the latter than the former.
I anticipated as much.
They relied on him heavily in the Meirs debacle. So they reached out to him now too.
Rest assured they're trying to get to Rush as well.
If they can get Rush to muffle his criticisms, they might stifle the whole revolution in the Party.
They're trying to go after talk show personalities because they are UNIQUELY able to channel discussion, to inform discussion, to amplify well-researched criticism and to RALLY the demoralized to continue the battle.
They're going after Hugh because they DESPEATELY need to peel off a few Conservative talk shows to their side.
So far, the only one they've got is Medved, and Medved is supporting the deal while clearly holding his nose.
EVERY REAL CONSERVATIVE wants to vomit thinking of this deal.
If you want some intense criticism of this deal, smart, erudite criticism, go check out Mark Levin's site, and listen to his Thursday and Friday broadcasts.
George W. Bush declared war on us.
WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT.
Please read David Frum's piece today, to truly understand how much damage this President is DELIBERATELY inflicting upon this Party.
|
|
Anybody who thinks politics consists of threatening to hold your breath until you turn blue is hereby invited to join the "Ron Paul for President" movement -- if something consisting of 111 people with tinfoil hats is a movement.
Yes, some of the opposition to immigration reform is nativist. I don't believe at all that most conservatives are nativists, although a few are. I mentioned one by name, and I could cite a few others.
There is zero evidence that Republicans lost last year because they deserted the "base." Some very conservative Senators, such as Rick Santorum, lost badly. (In Rick's case 59-41%. Rick spent $27 million on the race and didn't nudge his standing up by a point.) No Republican was closer to the base, or tried harder to use abortion and immigration as issues.
Evidence exists that show the number of people calling themselves Republicans has gone down by 10%. Those 10% didn't go mainly to the Independent camp. They went to the Democrats.
I almost hate to cite those figures, because they're so ominous. If they hold up, Republicans could lose 6-8 Senate seats and 25 or more congressional seats.
People like John McCain aren't saying it out loud, but they're sure signalling it: if we lose the interest of Hispanic, as we earlier lost Blacks and women professionals, we have no future. We could become the Ron Paul Party, a small collection of outright cranks, people with minimal appeal to American voters.
I would guess Hugh is contemplating some of these facts. That doesn't make him a turncoat. It makes him a realist, someone who cares about the direction of his country.
Note: I do think McCain is wrong when he says people voted against us because we'd 'deserted' our spending principles. I wish that were so. In the Democrats who replaced us had significantly less attachment to "our principles" than we did -- or do. It didn't help that we had crooks like Cunningham, Ney, and the odious Foley in office repesenting "us."
Somehow I don't think all those Republicans who are threatening to stay home are going to like President Hillary and Vice President Edwards. I'm not going to. |
|
Rest assured that Rush is getting hit this weekend with an avalanche of appeals from friends of the White House, from insiders in the RNC.
I haven't any doubt about it.
This is a conspiracy against the base of the Party.
AND THIS IS GOING TO GET VICIOUS FAST.
This will EXCEED the intensity of the Meirs fiasco, because whereas the Meris drama has an element of ambiguity present, for many could delude themselves that maybe the President doesn't really know...... HERE, in this nightmare, ALL OF US KNOWS now for sure that we are in the presence of a PRE-MEDITATED attack upon the structure and platform of the Party itself.
This is an attempt to obliterate the vestiges of Reaganism within the Party. The goals of this Presidency extend FAR BEYOND immigration.
This immigration is but a device, a poison pill if you will, a computer virus, that Bush and Rove desire to see extend from file to file, folder to folder, drive to drive, until the entire thing is ruined, ................... and will need to be replaced.
We are being attacked ALL across the board.
They're going after Conservative think tanks.
They're going after Conservative talk show hosts.
They're going after various constituencies, playing a game of divide et impere, divide and conquer.
|
|
|
Bogus statistics. Republicans are fleeing but not to the Democratic party. Despite the continuing increase of eligible voters, voter registrations are down in total and both parties are suffering defections, especially the Republicans. You can spin and twist and rant all you want but the current GOP led by your candidate Giuliani would be no different that a Hillary administration with or without this disastrous bill. We need a major overhaul all around. Even including the "conservative media" if they are all on board. Let the meltdown continue. We can all see the rats scurrying to fight for the highest point on the Titanic while it sinks BEFORE BEING STRUCK BY THE ICEBERG! How about focusing on not hitting the iceberg! The only ones I hear and see who "get it" are Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo. That's where I'm going and I only hope they feel the call of history enough to run independent if they have to. |
|
After the bleeding is controlled (i.e., the fence is built), most Americans are reasonable enough to recognize that many of the SS Fraud Felons in this country illegally just couldn't wait behind the thousands of their home country's men, women, and children who were already in line. The law stood in the way of their financial success.
They're no more guilty of a "real" crime than the leaders of Enron, WorldCom, or anyone else who broke Federal Laws to get ahead in this dog-eat-dog world.
Why should they be forced to obey the laws now? It seems like it would be unfair. And similarly unfair and onerous for those who have been patiently waiting in line. Let's let them all pay $6500 and become US Citizens. Let's let them all file for and receive Income Tax refunds (including EIC) for the last seven years. Let's let them all, assuming they're of an age that allows it, collect SS Benefits regardless of their ability to provide legal documentation of their right to work in this country for the last 20-30 years.
In fact, why not just hand over the keys to the White House, the Congress, and the Supreme Court to anyone claiming to be a victim of our Immigration laws?
/sarcasm
This bill, and any other one that ignores felonies committed by non-citizens illegally in this country is Treason. Look it up. Google "US Code 18, Chapter 115".
And Hugh, if you support this bill, you're a member of a Seditious Conspiracy.
Look it up.
Of course, it doesn't matter.
--The US Attorney General is a Hispanic who, even if he wasn't hanging on to his job be the skin of his teeth, is unwilling to prosecute illegals.
--The head of the Republican Party is another Hispanic with the same views.
--Powerful Republicans like Lindsey Graham address the Mexican KKK (La Raza) and lend credence to their position.
--The President is in favor of legalizing them, thinking, apparently, they're law-abiding (or at least cheap enough so that the big cxontributors won't mind).
I don't know whether this is some sort of brilliantly-disguised attempt to prevent a communist takeover of Mexico or treason and incompetence; but if it continues walking, quacking, and crapping like a duck, I'm not going to call it anything else.
Shame on you, Hugh!!! |
|
My last comment: I'd like some of my fellow conservatives to reflect on something a professor once told me: If you don't have logic or facts on your side, then it's time to change your position. Shouting slogans and hating people who disagree with you is not a sound strategy -- in politics, marriage, business, or life generally. Long ago, when Alexander the Great was on his death bed, someone asked the consqueror was the supreme law of life was. He replied, "The weak give what they must, the strong take what they wish." Right now, my friends, we are the weak, also known as "the minority."
I think what bothers me most about some people is that they posit this huge conservative majority out there. It shows up in none of the blue-chip opinion surveys. It certainly doesn't show up in the polling places. It seems to show up mainly in the vivid imaginations of the Ron Paul set.
There are 100 million members of minority groups (Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans) in this country. Add in women professionals (doctors, lawyers, etc.) Most of them think conservatives and Republicans are radioactive. Gee, what are we going to do about that? If the answer is "nothing," then we will soon become nothing ourselves. Ron Paul might become the last Republican standing.
Is this simple point really that hard to grasp?
The way we move away from being the "weak" (the ones who give) to the "strong" (the ones who take) is to add people to our numbers. Right now, most Americans -- check the last election -- believe their fortunes lie with the Democrats. Reciting slogans is not going to bring them over to our side. Listening to them is the first step. People who like to shout a lot don't much like to listen. In fact, the shouting seems to damage their hearing -- and perhaps even unhinge certain parts of their brains.
Sometimes the right thing to do is not what we want to do. The only group that thinks otherwise consists of two-year-olds (and maybe teenagers).
steve |
|
|
...our bordersand laws, then I see no reason to respect their jobs. |
|
|
When I was growing up, my dad decided to change the kitchen sink one summer so we ripped out the old sink. What we found was that the counter itself was rotting so we ripped that out too. We then discovered that the rot extended into the wall and the base flooring so we stripped the wall and floor. What we then discovered was that the floor was being supported almost completely along one side. By the time we were done, we had essentially taken down one-third of the house to get at all of the problems and it then occurred to him that it wouldn't be much more expensive to build out the house. We ended up with a much bigger dining room and kitchen and an enclosed porch with access from two set of stairs. Reminds me alot of what is going on here. Everywhere we peel away a layer, we find problems. If we follow the Steves of the world, we will end up with a rotten "big tent" on the cheap. I say we continue the stripping and peeling until we know what is going on and who is who and where the money is coming from to finance this war on American voters. Only then can we make a rational judgment about who we should support. For now, everyone is suspect until proven otherwise, including the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannities. Keep it coming. We need to know the truth. Just how extensive is the rot? |
|
There is an elephant here people are not touching and won't name.
Republicans had the congress from 2000-2006. What stopped them from implementing immigration reform during those years?
Bush stumped for Social Security reform, all by himself. Why didn't the Congress support him and just pass the changes? Why did he even have to stump? Why wouldn't he just work with Congress directly to get a bill passed? What was the point of spending that year touring America? Did the President have to go on tour because the Republican Congress told him "no" upfront and his last resort was to appeal to the American people the way Arnold likes to talk about appealing to the people directly? At least Arnold has the excuse that the California Assembly is predominantly Democrat.
Who put the time limits on Bush's tax cuts? Hint: it wasn't Bush.
Picking on immigration reform is a case of not seeing the forest through the trees.
It is clear that 80% of the Republican base supports Bush and his war on terror. Yet the American public is against the war by 66%. That ought to tell you something about the size of the Republican base these days.
I think Republicans need to do a serious debriefing over what went wrong during 2000-2006 and why.
Someone above pointed out that Republicans are a minority now and have to be realistic. Hello? Republicans had a majority for 6 six-years, with the President leading, and DID NOT PASS IMMIGRATION REFORM of any significance.
I believe the RWM (right wing media) is just as culpable as the MSM (mainstream media).
It can be shown that:
Upside
1.) RWM is great a getting candidates elected.
2.) RWM is great at reaching the conservative base.
Downside
1.) RWM is ineffective at convincing the mainstream public except in the most cynical of fashions called swift boating.
2.) RWM can be easily duped by politicians who say whatever is the expedient thing to say to RWM and then do whatever they want without any accountability.
I took to writing on TH for one reason. I believe the RWM needs to go mainstream. The conservative control of the government between 2000-2006 shows that the conservative base is not willing nor are they able to hold accountable those very politicians they support. The biggest critic of a conservative politician should be a conservative. The RWM has alienated all but the most crass of Americans. In a Democracy, having a media footprint that is satisfied with a perpetual minority reach in order to distance itself from the failures of the mainstream policies and politicians by very definition does not hold the power to hold politicians accountable. This is a Democracy.
RWM needs to relegate mudsling to "going negative" where one starts from a place a "positive" from which to descend from. The RWM gives no respect to the public or its enemies and demands no accountability from its politicians in order to enjoy their support.
The system is broken people. You are focusing on the trees of individual bills when in fact the years of 2000-2006 ought to tell you that the forest is the problem. If you can't be effective as a majority you sure as the h**l can't be effective as a minority.
Why is it that John McCain is the lone voice screaming about the spending like a drunken sailor of the years 2000-2006?
It's because RWM has failed in every way to be effective except in getting candidates elected and preaching the conservative choir.
RWM needs to treat the majority, mainstream public as if it cares what they think or it will only ever be a minority faction.
The Republican Congresses during the years of 2000-2006 are going received an 'F' by the American people. The Bush administration has earned that mark as well. Rebellion against Republicans has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with effectiveness.
It cannot be understated that the Republican political machine is seriously broken. It doesn't matter whether it is immigration reform or social security reform. The broken machine is not going to work.
|
|
and all you other so-called "Republicans" who keep saying "it's my way or the highway" on one issue or another, who're constantly threatening to sit out the next election or to leave the Party ....
Ya see that door there?
Yeah, the door to our Big Tent that you keep threatening to walk out because the Republican Party doesn't share your radical views on most anything? See it? Please don't let it swing back and hit you in the butt on your way out!
If the Party needs to go through another one of its periodic downsizings, like it did in after the Goldwater debacle in 1964, and again after 1992, in order to reacquaint itself with what has any reasonable chance be a majority coalition of Americans with conservative (but not radical) views, then maybe it is inevitable that 2008 will bring another such downsizing.
Please, guys, don't let the majority of us other lifetime Republicans who believe in the Republican Big Tent coalition slow you down on your way out. I'm sure you'll all be far happier in the John Birch Society, or hanging with your old buddy Perot, with Tom Tancredo as your movement's rising star.
Steve - I'm with you on your thoughts, but this schism within the Party has been building for a long time. We may have to resign ourselves to losing the 10% or 15% of chronic radical malcontents, and then go about and recruit a bunch of independents and young people who were themselves repelled by some of the more stupid things the Party has done in recent years to appease those guys who keep threatening to walk out.
The Republican Party has never been the natural home of nativists or isolationist, Libertarian dreamers. The Party of Lincoln and Reagan was always about optimism, expansion, growth, inclusiveness, and getting stuff done - and not about standing in the schoolhouse door and shaking one's fist at the National Guard. It's time for some spring cleaning.
|
|
Border first and foremost, with no compromise or other actions until the border is demonstrably secure. And that requires 3 things.
The keystone to this is a REAL Fence is up wherever possible, and the "virutal" fence is up in the gaps where the terrain prevents a fence from being built. It is there to first deter the opponent, and then to slow the opponent so that adequate reaction can be made in timely fashion, or finally, to channel the opponent into ground of our choosing.
The second element, follows the first. As any combat engineer knows, a fence (or any other barrier) is only there to increase the difficulty of traversing an area - it cannot stop anything on its own; What makes it work is what is behind it: troops. So the second leg of border security is ensuring there are enough border patrol agents with enough equipment to do the job well. We must ramp up the border patrol IMMEDIATELY, and augment it with Title 32 National Guard Troops, duly deputized by the various state governors, until sufficient Border Patrol units are available.
The third part has to do with government function in enforcing the laws. Ensure that the Border Patrol has plenty of legal backup - write laws that will allow them to immediately repatriate any border crosser caught in the act, gather and retain biometric data on the illegals (only to be destroyed if citizenship is proven or attained later), and back them with more court and legal protections. The other legal issue is that the government must demonstrate internal enforcement as well - prove that the government (DHS likely) can register, investigate and track individuals who are here legally (like Student Visa overstays), before they add more to the system. Try out the new cards and biometrics on those before we start adding "Z" visas with unproven techonlogy.
Hugh, if they agree to ALL of that, and I mena in a Reagn wasy - TRUST BUT VERIFY that the government is securing the border, then we can talk about sorting the sheep (one of whom you quoted, "Abe") from the goats (Fort Dix 6) that are already inside the borders, and figuring out fair treatment.
Our IMMIGRATION system is badly broken, but there is no reason to entangle its repairs with the BORDER SECURITY issues - the latter are clearly more important and are a predicate to any sort of immigration policy being effective. |
|
in the group I addressed who keep threatening to walk out.
My apologies to Steve.
Those who keep threatening to walk out, you know who you are.
We're not standing in your way. |
|
People on this board have oft accused me of being liberal.
That's because all I do is criticize conservatives.
And that's the way it should be.
RWM spends most of its time and energy criticizing liberals. The effect is that conservatives are ignored and literally can get away with whatever because NO ONE IS PAYING ATTENTION TO THEM BECAUSE THE RWM IS TOO BUSY LAUGHING AT LIBERALS.
If over the last six-years Ann Coulter had turned her visceral tongue on conservatives it actually may have made some effect holding someone accountable for something. What Ann Coulter is doing with her op-eds is exactly what Rush Limbaugh is doing. Making fun of liberals to entertain conservatives. Just great. How effective is that in exercising politics?
Not very.
Pew Research did a study in 1999 where they found more articles during the Clinton years critical of Democrats than the number of articles critical of Republicans. This from a MSM where 80% of the journalists were self-admitted liberals. What's going on? The journalists felt more compelled to hold liberals accountable than conservatives.
If only RWM would take the same approach it might go mainstream. Who better to criticize a Republican than a Republican. Wouldn't rather have the mainstream public reading a conservatives criticism of a conservative and not a liberal's criticism?
RWM needs to change.
|
|
Last December 17, I posted a piece called ' "Rosemary's Baby" Moment?'
http://thewayweare.townhall.com/g/04cc6914-743f-4c3d-b884-2d440495a12b
The gist of it dealt with how people react when they discover that people they trust have been the biggest evil in their lives. The book and movie don't go into what happened after Rosemary discovered that her husband and neighbors had arranged for her to carry Satan's baby but I doubt it mattered how well they may have constructed their arguments. The truth was just too awful to matter. This is what is happening right now in the GOP. Why are afraid of the Democrats? Look who we are trusting! Let's fix that first before we go into the elections! So you "Yeah we're bad but the Dems are even worse crowd", TAKE A HIKE! Let us adults work it out. It may get ugly but it is necessary. |
|
I think if we all do what you suggest - that is, to read through all of the details, make sure that there are no loopholes to drive a truck through, and make sure that what Tony Snow says is what is actually in the final bill, then we'll do pretty well. There will be further changes in the bill as currently drafted (and which nobody posting on this website has likely even read) as it goes through the legislative process. But at least now we have the basis for a compromise that a majority of Senators have signaled that they may be willing to vote for.
But I disagree with you that one can strip the internal enforcement measures from the external or border issues, and end up with what we really need. We have to know who is here, and why, as a given. As of today, we don't know that information on our illegals. And we also have to have a way to meet our nation's labor needs. And we have to have a system that recognizes which people are deserving of the privilege of living here long term, and in some instances, after going through a reasonable vetting process, may eventually apply for citizenship. Those who demand an immigration fix that does not recognize all three aspects of the problem are either kidding themselves, or (in at least a small minority of cases) simply refuse to acknowledge that his or her main objective is to ethnically cleanse the USA of its Spanish speaking/Mexican population. |
|
" John McCain is the lone voice"
There is a Senator by the name of Coburn that would differ with your revisionist history.
Other than that, I think you have a point.
The reason we lost the congress was not Iraq - it was the cumulative weight of 6 years of Republican pork, mismanagement and "inside the bubble" deafness (like this immigration bill shows). Bridge to nowhere, finger pointing over Katrina, rolling over to the Democrats on issues where they should have stood strong on principles, refusal to pass earmark reforms, or fix social security, yet they passed the bumbling No Child Left Behind act, the expanding the government massively with the Medicare prescription laws, and many other examples.
More actions like these - ill thought out, poorly formed and ramrodded through to prevent discussion will end up with the Republican party that is not trusted by its base at all, and even more losses at the polls.
I think our peopel in DC need a refresher course on how to be a (conservative) Republican.
Stand firm on principles. Be clear what these principles are - federalism, smaller government, lower taxes, muscular foreign policy, a sovereign nation with secure borders and a robust economy. A Republic that preserves and promotes liberty for citizens as individuala, not collected into groups of subjects and victims.
Be well reasoned and deliberate in your approaches. Do not do a McCain and ram things down peoples throats, do not be a Bush and try to tell us the amnesty isn't really amnesty, and do not acquiesce so readily for short term political gain that will erode freedom and betray conservative values.
And most of all, remember you are there for us, not for your reelection. Its we the citizens and our posterity, not the illegals or their advocacy groups, that should be first and foremost as your business on the hill.
In that light, this is not only a bad bill (spending, entitlements, etc), its one deserving of opposition on conservative principles. |
|
Our Party ACCOMODATED the President on EVERY domestic request but one, and that was Harriet Meirs.
No President ever received more support from his Party than has George Walker Bush.
We supported EVERYTHING he did.
We supported EVERY personnel decision he made, however disastrous, up until the embarrassingly miscast Harriet Meirs.
EVERY domestic movement this Party supported, up until the whole nation laughed the Dubai Ports deal out of the water.
AND EVEN THEN, many in the Party muted their criticism of the administration, hopeful that it was a case where the President and his ad visors didn't know what was going on. It was only later that we found out to our horror, that he knew, that he supported it, that it was part of his foreign policy.
If anyone in this Party is dictating that it's his way or the highway, that would be the verbal cripple from Midland, George W. Bush.
And I've had enough.
I've had enough of his pusillanimous foreign policy.
I've had enough of his ridiculous diplomacy with Iran.
I've had enough with him allowing Iranians to blow up, disfigure main and kill American men, without doing spit about it.
I've had enough of him channeling America's foreign policy through the nauseating auspices of the UN.
And I've had enough of his attempts to extirpate every vestige of victorious Reaganism from the Party, and replace it with the stale and failed Rockefeller Republicanism of dare of yore.
Politics is a game of compromise, to be sure. BUT IT'S ALSO an instrument through which principles, truths, values are articulated.
Which principles, which truths, which values has this administration forwarded and fought for?
I knew where this man and his ilk were taking this Party, this nation three years ago.
And I've raised my voice against it.
I've agitated against it, I've warned of it, I've described what was coming in lurid terms.
And the reality is far worse than my worse nightmare.
Where is George W. Bush leading you? To failure and to prolonged, protracted minority status.
Where would I lead you? Back to Reaganism, back to victories and majorities!
Take your pick.
Make your choice.
But before you brand me as one who refused to compromise, ask yourself where this President has lead you, your country and your party.
|
|
I think the proponents of comprehensive immigration reform are underestimating the influence that securing the borders would have on the opponents.
If like myself, opponents of the bill want the borders secured for obvious reasons, and would be more willing to compromise on things like a guest worker program or some form of regularization if only the borders were secured .
Here is were I think the proponents go wrong. They want to show compassion as well as have ulterior motives for wanting to regularize illegal immigrants which is legitimate if they would also show the same fervor for security and the rule of law. I'm afraid that's were they are lack significant credibility.
What's fundamentally missing in the proponents approach to this is the emphasis on border security and the rule of law. If a fence were built or the border legitimately secured, it wouldn't only serve a practical purpose but a symbolic one as well.
The opponents of comprehensive immigration reform not only see the national security aspect of an open border, they recognize, rightly, where their proponents priorities are and it's not with national security or border security.
Does any of that make sense?
|
|
Hugh is against this becasue he perceives a chance to attack John McCain and promote Mitt Romney. Note that after he spoke to Tony Snow and actually saw the terms of the deal he started to realize he might have over-reacted on this one.
McCain's statement is hardly a "jam down" and sounds fairly accurrate. Personally I think the bill needs work, but to claim (as Hugh does) that this is blanket amnesty is just wrong. Even Mitt Romney was for essentially this deal just a year or two before he was against it last week. The only difference between then and now is the deal is slightly more favorable to border security.
Personally I think we should have a benchmark--shore up border security, before any deal is implemented. Let's also see real enforcement of employer regulations. If the government does that, I think people will be in a more compromising mood.
Of course--the GOP could go Proposition 187 on this and say screw the illegals, send them back to Mexico (or where ever they come from). Politically that would be a very poor idea. One, it is not going to happen. There is no real political will for it. Two, all that would do is ensure Latinos get driven into the Democratic Party. Bush would have lost in 2000 and 2004 if he lost a sizable portion of Latino votes. We would left with the status quo of illegals coming over, using our social services, and generally living lives of limbo. And we can enjoy Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and of course, President Hillary Clinton running things for the foreseeable future.
Good job Hugh. The map is certainly looking red. |
|
The problem is that the underlying CORE premise of Hugh's emerging view is the antithesis of Reagan Conservatism: it contains an implicit trust of Government efficiency and execution of complex law.
I'm thinking of Reagan's 1980 inagural address...
We've been told this week that patrol at border gates aren't fully processing all IDs because the sheer number of them would cause a massive delay at entry. So now we need to believe that our Government can cope with processing 12 to 23 Million new workers, and do a REAL due diligence background check?
We're told that the government can't enforce existing law and deport illegal workers back to their home countries in Europe, North America, Asia, South America, et al. But now we should believe that the government can force these same people to "touch base" in their home country? Does that make sense?
We need proven strong enforcement and punishment of employers for 3+ years before proceeding with regularization legislatively.
Putting a timeline or triggers in a bill now is an invitation to stealth weakening of those provisions by the usual rider process.
Today's $5k fine become tomorrow's "waived for hardship" clause passed within some other piece of legislation.
Today's "touch base at home" provision becomes tomorrow "waived for hardship, please see nearest consulate" clause as a rider on some education or health bill. |
|
I know you are not a nativist, but what would you do with the 11 million+ illegals? Do you really think sending them back (mostly to Mexico) as a blanket policy is a good thing? I agree a sizable minority need the boot (based on bad and criminal behavior here in the United States). But the system has been fundamentally flawed for a very long time in allowing far too few immigrants--hence the grey market of illegal labor.
I want to see more legal immigration with a goal of assimilation and full citizenship. |
|
Pasadena Phil wrote:"So you "Yeah we're bad but the Dems are even worse crowd", TAKE A HIKE! Let us adults work it out. It may get ugly but it is necessary."
I dunno, Phil. You are not persuading people to join you by resorting to name calling in lieu or well-reasoned arguments. I don't think you made many converts by dismissing people who disagree with you as "Traitors."
How sure are you that--in this family drama--you are playing one of the "adults?" Your conclusory, mean-spirited, and incindiary rhetoric may suggest otherwise.Let's all calm down.
If you respond, PLEASE give us well-reasoned arguments and not invective.
Bruce Sherman
Oakland, Oregon |
|
common_cents writes: Saturday, May, 19, 2007 12:54 PM
Hugh's short march
And thus begins Hugh's very short march to near total support for the amnesty bill.
I am sure that he will keep minor reservations about the bill in order to claim that he isn't a total dupe, but I think we all know where this is going to end - in Hugh's blind support for the President.
In the end Hugh will be a flip flopper like Mitt Romney. Romney will likely go full circle on this and end up in the same spot. Just as long Hugh can sling stones at McCain at the same time, everything is good.
|
|
|
I used to respect Hugh but no longer. How stupid does he think we are? The president is a great conservative? I am done defending Bush and his failure to secure our borders. This ongoing invasion of our country from Mexico and most of the third world countries is a greater threat than a loss in Iraq from which we would eventually recover. Failure to prevent the ongoing invasion by illegal immigrants will be irreversible and will destroy our way of life. What difference will it make who wins the presidency if it is the presidency of a third world nation? |
|
...it doesn't serve much purpose to recklessly excoriate Republican representatives in Congress (in favor of the compromise,) before we've read the final version, and also know what's politically possible in this Congress. I'd compare those conservatives in favor of the bill to a District Attorney that thinks that the best he can possibly do is get a plea deal. He's going to lose if it goes to trial. The DA's using his best judgment to get the best deal he can. If the OJ Simpson jury (a Democrat majority) is empanelled, ready to hear the case, Ted Kennedy the foreman, you should probalby do the plea deal. I won't mention who's playing Judge Ito here.
|
|
Hugh, I am not a far-right DEPORT them all crazy.
IF Illegal Aliens could not take a Job or get any Fed/State Benefits, they would go home at THEIR expense! How could they stay here with no money? or food? or a place to live? They wouldn't, they would leave.
Hugh, YOU & O'Reilly are insulting our intelligence with this "This is the best we can get 'cause we aren't going to deport 12 mil."
A seriously disegenious line of BULL, most of us aren't buying.
YOU imply two chioces-thrown them out Gestapo stlye or let them all stay.
3rd choice-ENFORCE the 1986 & 1996 Immigrations laws.
Illegals leave and then, maybe then, we change the exisiting laws of allowing over 1.7 Million to come here legally every here. |
|
|
Why does this have to be a one shot all inclusive Comprehensive Bill? Just because W and Kennedy want it to be? Since a huge blowback is occuring , why doesn't Mitch and Kyl realize that they can Enforce first. Simply kill this bill and start with Enforcement only. So the `12 million have to wait a year or two. So what? What perks are we forced to give them , La Raza or the M13 gangs??? Why not build the 800 mile fence. Train the 18,000 border guards. At the same time, bring most of the troops we have in Europe home. We get two plusses for that. 1. Some can relieve troops in the ME. 2. Some National Guard troops would be freed up to command our border sites until we get the 18,000. Put the barricades, tech stuff, drones to work too. In effect, close the borders first. When that is done, in say two years, then do the visa, green card, fines, employer sanctions bit. Why the rush? Democrats are laughing up their sleeves because the blowback is against Pubs only, not them. And this nonsense of a Third Party only put Hil and company in power for a generation. Please don't listen to people who have no understanding of politics and power. We are a two party system and must change the GOP to help it regain its footing not flirt with Paul, Tancredo, Bloomberg, or Hagel. That leads to ruination even if some posters above don't understand it. |
|
You are making the same error many do - entangling immigration policy with security issues. They are ultimately related, but you need to address them separately since security is a predicate for internal policy enforcment.
Like most compromisers, you are putting the cart before the horse. You're repeating the same mistake - without securing the border, there is no way to do interior enforcement, not any of the other things.
The border is a SECURITY issue, first and foremost. And is must be handled like one, independent of, and prior to, immigration.
One analogy is that, you cannot do urban renewal until you solve the crime problems by increasing the policing. Once policing is in place and has started attacking the crimes, then its easier to handle renewal.
Your arguments do nothing to clear this up, and in fact they entangle it further. They are injurious to the real security needs of the country.
And you might note that I do address internal enforcement (did you NOT read my post? "he other legal issue is that the government must demonstrate internal enforcement as well - prove that the government (DHS likely) can register, investigate and track individuals who are here legally (like Student Visa overstays), before they add more to the system."). The pre-requisite is that we have a system that is proven to work FIRST, before we go granting amnesty to criminals the way you advocate.
So I do believe we will and in fact must find a way to incorporate many of those who are here illegally like "Abe" who would be just as good an addition as my Irish and Hungarian ancestors were.
Don't even get me started on the massive amount if entitlements expansion, court tinkering, etc that this bill encapsulates.
We cannot and MUST NOT condone the implemenation of laws providing amnesty, until we see the *pre-requisites* of a system to regulate the entry of immigrants into the nation in place and functioning. And that system is a secure and controlled border in place.
No amount of compromise for the sake of compromise, not wishful thinking (which you seem to excel at), nor projection of racism ont the oppoents, will change the reality that THIS IS A BAD LAW AND MUST BE STOPPED.
Every conservative must be full throated in opposition to it. To do otherwise, to acquiesce to a bad law as you presume to do, is not truly conservative - it is foolish. And to advocate entangling border security this deeply with broken immigration policy and expansion of entitlements, the way you do, in my opiunion, is, frankly, stupid as well.
If you wish to be foolish and stupid go ahead, but don't claim to be a conservative, and don't drag the rest of the Republican Party over the cliff with you.
|
|
Mr. Barnes,
I have always had a great respect for you and your publication. You strike me as both intellectually rigorous and honest.
Because of this impression, I have recently become dismayed by your comments on the Immigration issue. You have consistently been playing the beltway game of portraying the Immigration issue as a choice between proposals most Republicans would see as "amnesty" and "mass deportations", pointing out that "mass deportations" are impossible, and thus a "comprehensive" approach is the only workable solution. This is a straw man, as the real solution to immigration involves neither amnesty nor "mass deportations" at all, yet you never present this side of the argument to your readers or your viewers when you're on FOX. Hardly anybody against the Bush/McCain/Kennedy approach thinks mass deportations are the answer to this problem, yet you present that as the only alternative to their amnesty.
This is a false choice, and I hope your presentation of it in these terms stems from ignorance of the alternatives, and not some kind of "party man" deceptive tactic designed to generate support for the President's proposal. I hate to think that you would do such a thing, as the truth should be more important than party considerations, particularly on an issue with the potential to impact our nation in such a profound and possibly negative way. In other words, I hope your intention as a pundit is to enlighten rather than to confuse.
So what is the solution to the problem, then? The one that you are consistently refusing to include in your analysis?
It is this:
If we simply enforced the laws we have now, and add employer sanctions with teeth, the problem would resolve itself without need for mass deportations or even a fence. Do those two simple things, and you will have eliminated the very reason illegals come here in the first place - jobs.
Without being able to get work, illegals will have no other option but to SELF-DEPORT. They will simply have to go home on their own, because they'll have no way to make a living here and will be unable to sign up for welfare to mitigate their lack of income.
It's that easy. No big new bill is needed. No rewarding of law-breaking is needed. No screwing of all those in the legitimate line to get here legally is needed. No signing up of illegals to $2.5 TRILLION in Social Security and other services, AFTER their tax shares are accounted for, is needed. And finally, no fence or mass deportations would be needed.
Why don't we just try this easy, just and common-sense approach for a few years? Real enforcement of our actual laws, and THEN see how much of a problem is really left before we scrap the whole system and reward law breakers with an amnesty bill while gifting the Democrats with tens of millions of new hard left voters which will doom Republicans to permanent minority status inside a generation?
I bet that after just 2 - 3 years of this simple and low-cost policy we'd be looking at 1 - 2 million illegals instead of 12 - 20.
Shouldn't we actually give our current laws a try before we write new ones that nobody will bother to enforce(again)? This will be Ted Kennedy's third major amnesty, and each time all that has occured is an even greater massive influx of Democrat voters. Why fall for it yet again, or task this man with crafting a solution to a problem where he has roundly failed two times before? Only in Washington is such imcompetence so rewarded. The more you fail, the more of an "expert" you are, I guess. Why on earth, after the disaster of 1986, should we fall for the same schtick again? Can the country handle an even more massive influx of illegals that will be drawn here by yet another amnesty, as has happened like clockwork in the past? Will we never learn from our mistakes?
So no, the choice is NOT between "mass deportations" and anything else which conservatives would label amnesty. The third choice is enforcing the existing laws and adding tough employer sanctions - then watching the illegals go home on their own out of necessity.
Please don't continue to leave this solution, the easiest and most common-sense of all the "solutions" in the current Immigration debate, out of your analyses any longer. It's intellectually dishonest and beneath you to do so.
Thank you, |
|
|
Simple answer. It's a shakedown. They don't plan on ever enforcing the border. They could also split out the section dealing with increasing the allotment of highly skilled immigrant too but won't. This is the most disengenuous and corrupt piece of legislation I have ever seen. When the Berlin wall came down, who won? It seems to me that the Kremlin simply relocated to Washington DC. |
|
You're either a Democrat trying to pull one over on us or a McCain or other pro-Amnesty Senator's staffer trying to save his bacon.
You can't confuse us. The "rabidness" has not died down one bit. In fact, it's picking up.
And as has been explained to you, we are CERTAINLY doomed to minority party status if we embrace amnesty and import 50 million illegals who break Democrat by 2 to 1. This is ASSURED if we let this happen. The end of Conservatism and the Republican party.
It is a demographic CERTAINTY.
The notion that we doom ourselves if we are seen as "anti-immigrant" is only THEORETICAL. Could it happen? Sure, but it also could not.
I believe CERTAINLY WILL HAPPEN is much worse than COULD HAPPEN, so I'll stay on the no amnesty side, thank you.
Besides, I don't think this issue will hurt us, since 70% of people, according to polls, even a majority of LATINOS, favors an ENFORCEMENT FIRST solution to Immigration.
So we're on the side of the polls, and everybody, Democrat, Republican, white, black and Latino agrees that we should enforce the borders FIRST, and then talk about other stuff later. After all, we're already tried it your way TWICE before and it's failed miserably both times - so why fall for it again?
But once again, going for amnesty gives us a democraphic certainty that Republicans will be the minority party. Being against amnesty gives us only that possibility, but we're on the right side of the polls on the question so I don't think it's much of a danger.
Answer me this, Bruce - do you really think "certainly" is better than "possibly"?
|
|
|
There are people here who constitute two Greek choruses interjecting between the important scenes of the play: those whose only argument is "But we can't allow Hillary to win!" and those who spin every situation into "Giuliani/McCain/Romney is the only candidate who can beat Hillary." What is going on is serious business and cannot be resolved by an abstract debate about Republicans vs. Democrats or the various personality cults. All I am seeing here is the same message being presented by ever changing messengers. I DON'T CARE WHO THE MESSENGER IS! I COMPLETELY REJECT THE MESSAGE! I don't trust the government on this and most issues! It is not overstating the case to accuse those who will sell out their country's sovereignty as being traitors. It is the purest example of treason. If the shoe fits, wear it. Like Matt Lewis said a couple of weeks ago, politics is a rough game. Wear a helmet!. |
|
What a great letter to Fred Barnes. As an admirer of Barnes, I am consistently dismayed by the inside-the-Beltway reaction Barnes has toward immigration, which as you point out is predicated on false choices and which looks down on those of us who don't care for the current types of proposals as "nativists." (I am SO tired of being called that.) I really liked your sensible response to him.
Best wishes,
Laura
Laura's Miscellaneous Musings
http://laurasmiscmusings.blogspot.com/ |
|
That's a great post. This "best bill we could get" approach assumes we MUST have a new set of laws passed on this issue. We don't. Enforce existing law, earn our trust, relieve many difficult issues by enforcing the law, then move toward a new guest worker plan IF the economy needs it.
I usually like Fred Barnes -- I think he needs to move away from the DC area for a while. This is "beltway" disease that just assumes a law has to be passed.
But this view totally ignores the Reagan legacy. Hugh and Barnes are showing affinity for Nixon-era type control and management by Government rather than the Reagan worldview. |
|
|
|
This one was dashed off in a heartbeat after reading his condescending column calling us "yahoos" for not agreeing with him. I should've proofread it, but... oh well.
...
Mr. Kristol,
Two major points you miss - what the American people want(by the polls), and the devastating demographics of Hispanic voters on the future of the Republican party...
In every poll where they bother to ask the question, Americans favor an ENFORCEMENT FIRST policy on our borders by around 70%. Even a small majority of Latinos in this country supports this policy.
We are a generous people and willing to discuss things like amnesty, but only AFTER the government can demonstrate that it will seal the border up for real this time.
Considering the track record of our past two major amensties, where we were promised border security but only got the amnesty, I think it's fair to demand we "get it in writing" this time, don't you? Past amnesties have only served to encourage more rampant illegal immigration to our uncontrolled borders. The policies have failed miserably, and we're being asked to drink the kool-aid yet again? Why is the solution to failure in Washington always more of the same?
And WE'RE the "yahoos" because we don't want to fall for something that has failed so miserably for the third time in a row? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. In this case, the inmates are running the asylum.
Second, Republicans WILL have permanent minority status for sure if we embrace amnesty. Hispanics break hard for Democrats, by a 2 to 1 margin, which is why Democrats are so hot to trot to import them by the tens of millions into this country.
How is it that you guys can't crunch the demographic numbers here? The nation is 50/50 right now, but import 50 million(current illegals plus family and higher immigration) hard leftists from socialist countries and turn them into voters and it's just over for Conservatism in the United States. And the Republican party will be doomed to permanent minority status.
You say that we COULD become a minority party if we're seen as anti-Immigrant. I don't believe that for one second, as the polls consistently favor the position of us "yahoos". But if we allow amnesty we will CERTAINLY be the minority party - by sheer demographics.
Is not "could become" favorable to "certainly will become"?
Despite an extreme effort, we were not able to make much of a dent in elevating the numbers of Hispanics that voted Republican in 2004 over 2000. Bush DID NOT get 44% of that vote, as has now been proven. Those numbers were based on the initial "Kerry won" exit poll numbers that they had to massage back into some kind of reality, and a lot of their numbers got hopelessly skewed. The numbers for the Hispanic vote don't add up at all when you crunch the raw data from the same survey. In some states, Bush would've had to have gotten 190% of the Hispanic vote for the numbers to match. At best, according to analysis, Bush got about 38% or maybe 39% of the Latino vote in 2004.
This is probably a ceiling, because as Democrats gleefully note, Hispanics have voted Democrat for President from 90% to 60%, with an average of 2 to 1 Democrat over the years. Thinking this will change is a mere pipe dream. You don't move large populations so easily - just look at the black vote.
And even if we could possibly change this in the future, the odds are that we will not, so we will be putting the entire future of the party on the line with the HOPE that we can defy the odds and change Hispanic voting patterns over time? That's ridiculous. Very risky, indeed. Even worse, we will certainly be starting off in the hole, with extreme disadvantage compared to Democrats electorally, and will face a long climb of "converting" all these new voters to vote Republican. This is a situation you find advantagous for the Republican party?
So why are we "yahoos"? We are the ones:
1. For the rule of law.
2. In line with what the American people actually say they want in poll after poll.
3. That have bothered to crunch the democraphic numbers and see the catastrophe that bringing in 50 million socialist voters will bring to the Republican party and Conservatism.
4. Who have learned from the failures of the past and demand a different strategy this time around.
5. Who are apparently alone in concern for fiscal responsibility and how we're going to pay for the $2.5 trillion after-tax expense of this amnesty on our entitlement programs.
I'm sorry, Mr. Kristol, but its you beltway types who are being the "yahoos" on this issue, and have apparently not thought it through.
This issue represents the biggest disconnect I've ever seen between the political beltway elites in this country and the "normal" people who actually make the country work.
Out there in the real world, just about everybody, Democrat and Republican, White, black and even Latino, is for the way of the "yahoo" on Immigration.
Now I'll let you return to your regularly-scheduled condescension.
Thank you,
...
These beltway guys just need to wake up, don't they? Move or something, guys - you just don't "get" real America at all.
|
|
drivebyposting,
you wrote;
*******************
"What Ann Coulter is doing with her op-eds is exactly what Rush Limbaugh is doing. Making fun of liberals to entertain conservatives. Just great. How effective is that in exercising politics?
Not very."
*******************
My friend, if Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are "not very effective" as you assert, then the liberals wouldn't be investing so much time attempting to shut them up.
Whenever Coulter goes to a college campus to speak, she has bodyguards to protect her from anonymous phoned-in threats, as well as the angry left-wing students who inevitably shout down her speech.
They only do these things because she IS effective within the political realm.
And the liberals in Congress want to impose the "Unfairness Doctrine" on conservative talk radio hosts such as Rush because he is effective---and the Democrat Congress knows it.
|
|
Every time one of these "comprehensive" bills come up -- and let's not forget Simpson-Mazzoli of 1986 -- we're promised all these great things and new enforcement blah blah blah with amnesty.
Then, miracle of miracles, the only thing that REALLY happens is the amnesty part.
This is deja vu all over again, and anyone who falls for it has their head up their butt.
Secure the border FIRST as a separate stand-alone issue. Then and ONLY then, have the conversation about what else to do about the illegals already here.
The reason they refuse to do this is because they know the only popular part of the "comprehensive" approach is border security, and if that's solved by itself, all their opther proposals are doomed.
This is the height of political cynicism and hypocrisy. Don't fall for it.
Hewitt's obviously one of those who now has his head up his butt.
|
|
The bottom line is that we do not have reason to believe anything that is said regarding immigration 'reform'. The government has proven itself untrustworthy and a bad-faith operator regarding immigration.
I'm seriously beginning to wonder if the America I believe in exists anymore. It's sold its soul for cheap widgets.
|
|
"don't let it swing back and hit you in the butt on your way out!"
You ARE joking right? There won't even be a door to swing back and hit you in the butt on your way out if this bill is passed into law.
Enjoy the M-T Tent....... |
|
The problem is not President Bush. The problem is not the Democrats. The problem is not the presence of illegal aliens in the country. The problem is not weak-willed Republicans who always roll over to whatever the Democrats want.
The problem is the virtually universal acceptance by the American people of two ideas: 1) Altruism, the idea the virtue consists of helping others, and: 2) Welfare statism, the idea that government should proceed to implement this moral ideal by taking money from the taxpayers and giving it to whoever can demonstrate that they are “in need“.
It is this pair of ideas that Democrats used to destroy American capitalism and create the welfare state. Democrats have successfully positioned themselves as the party that satisfies people’s needs, whether it be the need for food, housing, transportation, education of one’s children, retirement income, employment, medical care -- you name it, the Democrats have created a federal program for it.
This is why the Democratic party is so popular with minority groups. It has made good on the pledge to plunder the only non-minority -- white males -- for the sake of paying of these minority groups. And it has succeeded in demonizing Republicans as being “anti-minority”.
For their part, Republicans have never had the courage to challenge the altruism/welfare statism ideas that are being used to plunder the American taxpayer. Even the sainted Ronald Reagan not only refused to challenge these ideas, he actually endorsed them. In his famous speech in which he declared, “Government is not the solution, government is the problem”, he went on in the same speech to assure people that he would strengthen -- not abolish -- the “safety net” of welfare programs for the poor, the elderly, the sick, the homeless, etc. That’s right, it was Reagan who gave us the “safety net” concept, a concept that legitimizes the whole welfare scheme by endorsing the view that those in need must be helped at taxpayer expense.
Instead of challenging these ideas, Republicans for a long time tried to protect the taxpayers with tax cuts. But tax cuts in the face of vast spending increases is a fraud -- it merely means that the burden of paying for the spending is delayed somewhat into the future.
But now we face the ultimate horror: the sum of all these minorities and miscellaneous pressure and special interest groups that have sprung up, all of which are married to the Democrats and their promises of ever-increasing hand-outs and benefits -- blacks, Hispanics, Asians, females, etc -- together constitute a majority that can elect anyone they wish, anyone who will promise them more and more plunder.
The non-tax payers have moved into a majority -- and the taxpayers are increasingly helpless.
Republicans like Bush simply awakened to this reality and realized that to get elected, they had to purchase votes with promises of plunder of their own ( with some tax cuts thrown in to pacify the base of taxpayers that are too dumb to realize that the inflation caused by deficit spending will destroy the value of their earnings anyhow.)
Now, both parties are looking at a block of several million potential additional votes and are trying hard to figure out how to win them. Democrats will win the great majority -- because Democrats are the champions of the welfare philosophy. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” has not made a dent in that -- it has only served as an open admission that the Democrats have been right all along.
As long as the American people accept the ideas behind altruist-welfare statism, we remain a magnet for the world’s poor -- some of whom, to be fair, only want a chance to work and earn a living -- but many of whom just want to exist at someone else’s expense and have heard the Democratic party’s promise that the taxpayers of America can always be looted a little more. |
|
Hewitt has called for a grassroots operation to stop the agreement, even though it pretty much matches what his preferred candidate outlined during the last debate:
MR. WALLACE: Governor Romney, you have also called Senator McCain's immigration plan amnesty. Are you prepared to say that sharing the stage with him tonight? And how do you explain your statement to the Lowell Sun last year in which you said, quote, "Those that are here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process toward application for citizenship as they would from their home country." Why isn't that amnesty as well, sir?
MR. ROMNEY: Well, my view is this. People should have no advantage by having come here illegally.
MR. WALLACE: But you're not telling them to go home, sir.
MR. ROMNEY: I am going to tell them to go home, but they start by beginning the process of applying for citizenship. But I do not believe -- or applying for permanent residency. They're not going to be barred from doing that, but they do not get any advantage by having come here illegally. That's the key part of what I objected to in McCain-Kennedy.
McCain-Kennedy, what it did is said that people who are here illegally get a special pathway. They're not like all the other immigrants in the world that want to come to this great country; they get a special pathway. That's what's wrong about it. If you're here illegally, you should not have a special pathway to become a permanent resident.
My view, you have to secure the border, number one, have an employment verification system, number two, and number three, say to those that are there illegally, get in line with everybody else; you're not going to have a special doorway, any particular advantage, by having come here illegally, to become a permanent resident.
Well, if this bill has the touchback provision, and it has the Z-visa and the formal guest-worker program, and really secures the border, then it meets his requirements ... doesn't it?
Captain Ed sums it up (while noting the deal was not great): "The GOP did a pretty good job of holding the line and forcing the Democrats to include the border-first triggers, the reduction of the family interest, and the rest of what Kyl managed to retain."
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010002.php |
|
Pasadena Phil wrote: "I don't trust the government on this and most issues! It is not overstating the case to accuse those who will sell out their country's sovereignty as being traitors. It is the purest example of treason. If the shoe fits, wear it. Like Matt Lewis said a couple of weeks ago, politics is a rough game. Wear a helmet!."
Phil, my friend, I am actually trying to help you here.
My point is that you will--on any issue--stand a better chance of converting people to your way of thinking by employing well-reasoned arguments which are stated calmly and clearly.
Of course, I am assuming that getting people to come around to your way of thinking is, in fact, your goal. If, on the other hand, you just enjoy a good rant, then by all means hurl all the insults you please.
Bruce Sherman
Oakland, Oregon |
|
So Hugh Hewitt does another flip flop, inside 24 hours.
|
|
"Senator Kyl alone has the sort of standing with the GOP base as to make the revisions credible."
No, Tom Tancredo alone has the sort of standing with the GOP base as to make the revisions credible. Kyl is another Mel Martinez, who ran for office opposing amnesty and flipped as soon as he won the election. |
|
"There is an urgent need to regularize the illegal population for a variety of reasons, and to assure the flow of legal immigrants into the country, a flow that has usually been welcomed and absorbed. The GOP rejects the natavism of the extreme right, of course, and there are compelling reasons to endorse guest worker programs and specialized skill visas"
Straight out of the WH talking points memo. And there is the obligatory reference to the "nativists of the extreme right", which all good RINO's depend on to show how really decent and humane they are.
Screw you, Hugh. And the horse you rode in on. The conservative movement will be the better without backstabbers like you in it.
|
|
"When conservative heroes, people like McCain, Chambliss, and Kyl, say this is the best deal we can get, let’s not call them turncoats."
Who is it that thinks they are "conservative heros"? McCain is not even a conservative, and Kyl is a turncoat who opposed amnesty while running for election and supports it now.
|
|
|
Illegal alien Abe pitches a sad tale. But he misses the point. Badly. What really agitates Republicans is that illegal aliens and their children threaten to disturb the balance of political power. They overwhelmingly support Democrats and no amount of pandering by conservatives will ever change that reality. If it were not so, the Democrats would be anti-immigrant to a far greater degree than Republicans are. |
|
What the ****? Dude check the labels- you're not makin sense?
STOP THE BILL! CLOSE THE BORDERS! |
|
|
|
I'm afraid it's gonna take a near-death experience for the GOP to get their heads on straight.
I guess they had to choose between lobbyists that want cheap labor/more government dependents and the American people. The American people lost out. Too bad, because they need their votes and they will lose many of them. The leftist agenda is poised to score a big victory as a result of the GOP flipping off its base. |
|
Since the Amnesty of 1986, (which was purported to be the first the last the one and only),there have essentially been seven more thinly veiled amnesties for illegal aliens.
The difference today is that this Senate Bill is not thinly veiled. It is another amnesty.
Read what Retired Border Patrol Officers offer on this current subject at (http://www.nafbpo.org)
These Officers actually were working in the previous amnesty programs and know the history.
I urge people that were not working in these programs to hear their perspective and consider their advice.
I was working Border Patrol Agent during all of these amnesties and I can tell you that, from what I saw, the reason that the "Employer Sanctions" provisions were suspended by the Department of Justice was that they were effective far beyond expectations.
And I can also tell you that the filtering provisions of the law were ineffective because blanket waivers were issued by the Department of Justice for denied applications that were fradulent on their face.
This present Immigration Bill is about aliens per se. Chinese, Iranian, Pakistani, Yemeni, Jordanian, Irish, Syrian, Lebanonese, French, Greek, Russian, Sudanese, Brazilian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Italian, Polish, Jamaican, Honduran, Salvadoran, Peruvian, etc.
Immigration Law is not about any one nationality, it is about all aliens.
An alien is any person not a citizen or national of the United States.
We should focus on what is best for United States Citizens and the United States.
We should also take note of history. Our government intentionally failed to enforce the provisions of the 1986 Act.
Why should we trust them now?
|
|
I applaud your efforts. These two gentlemen are proof-positive of how the DC culture engulfs even those with the best of intentions.
Please let us know if either Mr. Barnes or Mr. Krystol respond.
Finally, Mark Levin nails it on his blog @ National Review with his response to today's Wall Street Journal editorial that essentially pins the "yahoo" label on those of us that promote the rule of law.
|
|
Dunn is exactly right when stating another round of amnesty is nothing more than offering up a voting block that will vote democratic in large majorities.
If 12-20 million illegal immigrants are granted amnesty then it is officially O-V-E-R for the republican party. |
|
This is more blathering, much the same as Larry Kudlow and the Wall St. Journal crowd. Living in Morristown, NJ my DEMOCRATIC Mayor has been trying to deport illegal aliens who have committed crimes by deputizing local law enforcement. Gov. Corzine has called him personally and asked him not to do this. We can't even rid ourselves of illegals that are criminals, and we expect them to actually protect us on the border. I also have legal friends from Columbia vehemently opposed to this bill because they KNOW from being inside this travesty that there are many more than 9 million illegals. They believe through their sources that the number is at least 40 million or more, and much like in 1986, the under reported number is used to keep opposition down. They say that many of these people are criminals running away from their countries, and groups like La Raza are protecting this information from coming out. They are really upset because they went through a long and arduous process of becoming legal, and value becoming Americans by learning the language and culture and understand how GREAT this country is and the opportunity to succeed is in one's self. Most of these illegal immigrants send most of their money back to other countries, pay no taxes, and care nothing about America other than making money. Just because the jig could be up, they now pretend to care at all about our country. The first wave of protesters with Mexican flags and banners proclaiming they are taking over is their real attitude, not the more rehearsed and polished versions in later demonstrations.
How can we even consider blanket amnesty without even remotely knowing how many are here? How can we even begin the process without shutting down the border to gain control? If someone hasn't even pretended to file a tax return earlier than 2006 how can they be considered to be in good standing? For every story of the illegal above, their are 100,000 who have made no attempt at all to try and fit in and obey any laws. There are many avenues to start the process of figuring out this problem and solving it, but to even remotely promote amnesty isn't one of them.
Larry Kudlow actually said our economy couldn't survive losing these people, yet we survived 9/11 and came out strong, WE ARE AMERICA, we survive anything and bounce back. He says a low tax base is the future to a strong economy... if Democrats win every election because of these actions do you think taxes stay down with a rise in welfare and universal health care? I am sick of the ELITES on both sides screwing middle America with their out of touch and self motivating theories. It is time WE THE PEOPLE took control of OUR COUNTRY. The polarizing factions on the left and right care nothiing about the heart of America.... the middle class. NOW is the time we get of our ASSES and tell America enough with screwing us, we are bringing this country back to greatness instead of the mediocrity being promoted by the defeatist Democrats who sell their voters on how they can't prosper without their help, and the GREEDY Republicans like Kudlow and the Wall St Journal crowd who promote big business to the detriment of the lower and middle class. This was our wakeup call to stop being passive and accepting what we are fed. Stop bitching in our living rooms about how we got screwed again and then go back to work for people who use us but don't respect us because we NEVER fight back. Go to work, pay taxes, obey the law, and never rise up, that is the middle class way, and every politician knows it so they ignore us. WE make this country's engine run, we pay for the programs, the wars, the schools, hospitals, roads, and everything else in this great country, yet we are dismissed. ENOUGH ALREADY! We prepare and bake this American pie, but politicians make sure everyone takes a piece, and expects us to be happy with the crumbs, like paying for this immigration problem. I say, show us you deserve us and our votes. Show us our respect for doing anything this country asks and more yet receiving the least for it. It's our turn, DEMAND more from our leaders, and put an end to the abuses we are receiving from a political process that has totally neglected the MOST important part of this country, the people who have built it's greatness, the middle class. |
|
|
|
|
Hugh has long been supportive of Bush's policy of surrender to the illegal aliens demands. He has been dismissive of opponents of regularization/guestworker/amnesty, calling them names such as nativist, anti-immigrant, or restictionist. His recent posts were a tactical shift to aid Romney. Romney's shift shows he knows where the votes are going. Corporate interests and the RNC want to keep the cheap labor express going. That is why regularization/guestworker/amnesty is so important to the GOP hierarchy. The citizens/voters want the border secured and the laws enforced. We won't be fooled again. The only part of this bill acted on will be amnesty. We will get no security or enforcement. Most people are for legal immigration, just not illegal inundation. If we act like sheep and don't stop it, we will lose our country without a bleat. |
|
HUNTER EXPRESSES “FIERCE DISAPPOINTMENT” OVER SENATE AMNESTY PROPOSAL
I vow to oppose this legislation supported by Senators Edward Kennedy and John McCain.It provides a vast new immigration benefit to millions of illegal aliens who have broken our laws to live in the United States.I opposed the 1986 amnesty act because of this same reason.It proved to be the draw that we predicted it would be.I am deeply disappointed to see history repeating itself.
This package will confirm to the world that the U.S. does not really mean what it says when it comes to immigration enforcement.As a result of the citizenship benefit included in this legislation, despite the fine print, we will see a stampede across our borders.
This vast new amnesty and expansive guest worker program will surely be ridden with fraud and abuse, and ultimately lead to millions of public-assistance-dependent immigrants.
The Senate’s decision to blatantly ignore the Secure Fence Act signed into law last year and only require construction of 370 miles of fence, as opposed to the 854 miles mandated by the law, is a dramatic failure of this legislation.The San Diego border fence has proven that fencing works.The time has come to quickly implement the Secure Fence Act, not retreat from its mandates.
I believe that this package will result in lower wages for America’s already-struggling families by encouraging the importation of cheap foreign labor rather than investing, developing and growing a domestic workforce that will sustain our economy far into the future.
Amnesty is not the answer.Border enforcement must be first and it must be comprehensive.To do otherwise is to repeat the mistakes of the past.This Senate bill is bad for Americans, bad for our workers, bad for law enforcement and, most importantly, bad for national security.I will fight it.Please join with me.
http://www.gohunter08.com/shownews.asp?artid=42
|
|
The last 3 paragraphs make a lot of sense...
A "comprehensive" plan doesn't mean much if the government can't accomplish one of its most basic responsibilities for its citizens -- securing its borders. A nation without secure borders will not long be a sovereign nation.
No matter how much lipstick Washington tries to slap onto this legislative pig, it's not going to win any beauty contests. In fact, given Congress's track record, the bill will probably get a lot uglier -- at least from the public's point of view. And agreeing to policies before actually seeing what the policies are is a heck of a way to do business.
We should scrap this "comprehensive" immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway. That would give proponents of the bill a chance to explain why putting illegals in a more favorable position than those who play by the rules is not really amnesty. |
|
kool aid, please.
The vast majority of Republicans favor amnesty? (regularize is newspeak for amnesty - how stupid do you think we are?) The vast majority of Americans left and right are against amnesty.
The reform bill is real easy and could be written in 50 pages or less. Security first - Build the wall - all of it. Increase the number of border agents. You have 12 months to return to your country of origin and get a background check and valid visa to enter the country - and you need an American sponsor to get back in. Increase the number of visas given out each year, but only with a valid background check. If you do not comply within one year and you are here without a valid visa you get deported, and you cannot apply again for 5-10 years.
Companies that hire illegals will have senior execs fined and jailed and schools that have students without valid student visas lose federal funding. States and cities that harbor illegals or give them non emergency aid lose federal funding.
Hugh, I thought you were serious about security - how did you fool me for so long? |
|
backboneamerica.net/2007/05/18/a-coloradans-immigration-plea-to-congress
(Former Republican State Senate President John Andrews, testifying before Congress May 17)
Mme. Chairman and committee, Colorado is close to the front line of America’s unsecured southern border. We are a conduit for massive illegal traffic into this country. I dealt with the consequences as Senate President, 2003-2005. I bring you an appeal from our state to build the fence and secure the border first and foremost. I urge you not to reward lawbreakers with green cards and citizenship.
People in my state are self-reliant in their way of life, optimistic in their outlook, and welcoming to newcomers from anywhere in the world. We are not complainers, and we are not alarmists.
But we know a problem when we see one, and we expect a bargain to be kept. Right now millions of Coloradans see the invasion of illegal aliens as an urgent problem for our state, and we attribute that problem to the federal government’s failure to keep its bargain with Americans everywhere for secure borders and the rule of law.
Amnesty for illegal aliens was supposed to fix this problem 20 years ago. It did not. Estimates today put the illegal alien population of Colorado at somewhere between 250,000 to 750,000 people – as much as 15 percent of the entire population.
Our schools, our health care system, and our criminal justice system are groaning under this burden. Our common culture and common language are fraying. We feel that Washington has let us down. It seems Congress and the White House just don’t care.
Most of those individuals who broke the law to come here or stay here are probably good people with good motives. But we cannot be sure. Some may be enemy sleepers with deadly intent. Nor can we be sure how many of them are actually here, or what countries they came from.
I can tell you that their country of origin does not matter at all to my fellow Coloradans. What matters is their disruptive impact on our state – disrupting self-government, disrupting safe neighborhoods, disrupting affordable public services.
Feeling betrayed by federal inaction, Coloradans last year started a petition to protect affordable public services by restricting them to legal residents only, except in emergencies or by federal mandate. The petition was called Defend Colorado Now. I was one of four co-chairmen, Democrats and Republicans, Anglos and Hispanics, leading that campaign.
A study done for our group, based on documented statistics in the public record, found that illegal aliens were costing state taxpayers over $1 billion a year through the extra burden on services — and reducing family paychecks by another $2 billion a year through lower wages. (See full study at http://www.defendcoloradonow.org .)
In 2005, Colorado voters had approved a ballot issue to raise taxes by about $1 billion a year – which would not have been necessary if the federal government had kept its bargain for secure borders.
In 2006 Coloradans set out to do what we could about the problem ourselves. Our petition fell short, but it did push the legislature into passing some of the toughest ID requirements and workplace sanctions of any state.
The legislature also asked voters to approve a lawsuit against the US Attorney General, demanding enforcement of federal immigration laws in order to give us some budgetary relief in the areas of health care, law enforcement, criminal defense and incarceration, and education. It passed by a landslide and the Colorado lawsuit is now in federal court. We’re not holding our breath, but it shows the public impatience on this issue.
I grew up in a Colorado mountain town called Buena Vista. This week there was a national news report alleging that radical Islamists have a paramilitary training camp at Buena Vista. I wonder if some of them are illegal aliens, similar to the Fort Dix cell that was recently broken up. That’s the risk we take with an unsecured border in the middle of a global war.
As the father of a Denver police officer, I have to take such threats seriously. One of my son’s fellow officers, Donald Young, was brutally murdered by an illegal alien two years ago this month. My son has a T-shirt that says “Never Forget.” Coloradans have not forgotten, but we can’t solve this problem without your help in Congress.
The help we need is for you to build the fence and secure the border, period. No amnesty for lawbreakers. No so-called comprehensive solution for cheap votes and cheap labor. Just stop the invasion. |
|
The State of Colorado is having to SUE to get the Feds to enforce the laws on illegal immigration! And that was a REPUBLICAN legislature that got the people of the state of Colorado to pass it - and a REPUBLICAN Governor who signed off on the lawsuit, and a REPUBLICAN State AG who is launching the lawsuit.
And now you say we trust this same US Attorney General Gonzalez and President Bush to enforce new more demanding laws when they had to be sued for their continued inactivity in enforcing the previous ones?
Hugh, have you gone insane?
They got you before. Don't let Bush and the RNC bend you over again, its humiliating to see you like this Hugh.
2 words for you: Harriet Myers.
'Nuf Said? |
|
in fact just started when he expressed his strong disapproval of this disgusting betrayal of the American people by our Senate and President. I think that was Friday.
I know RINOs can flip faster than a pancake at the IHOP but doesn't this one set some kind'a record??!! |
|
|
You may have stumbled onto the key to turning this problem around. You can't apply for citizenship without being sponsored by an employer. I have to think about this. Strong border control so when we empty the prisons of the hundreds of thousands of illegals they can't come back and win the workers with a manageable way to absorb them as English-speaking legal immigrants on their way to becoming assimilated as genuine American citizens instead of LaRaza. Worth considering. Gives hope to the majority of the Mexicans who are trapped in Mexican-style violent neighborhoods where "rats" are murders and the police are helpless. That's the key. Don't absorb Mexicans, assimilate those who want to become Americans to get away from Mexico. I may write a post about this if I can work it out in my head. |
|
|
....that the 15 million illegals were from Canada, had college degrees, and wished nothing more than to vote Republican. So, let's see, are we still against amnesty? Not I. Ted Kennedy, on the other hand, would be ready to put the 82nd Airborne on the northern border. |
|
|
She keeps telling me I wouldn't be opposed to illegal aliens if they were all buxom blondes from Scandinavia. I would hope that she's wrong, as I try to be consistent, but......... |
|
|
The vast majority of illegals that I know, and I know hundreds, are more conservative than most people who are blogging here. I hate to admit it but my party is Xenophobic. God help us. |
|
You are soooo wrong and way out of line!
I don't think any of the posters are Xenophobic- It's about respect for our laws, respect for our country! I'm not allowed to choose which laws to obey and neither are you. If you break the laws of our country you should pay the penalty- me, you and every illegal. I was very blessed to be born here and I'm sorry for everyone who wasn't but life is not fair. If you want to be an american then start by obeying our laws. |
|
|
|