Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons

Townhall.com The Blogspot for Political, Conservative and Republican Blogs and Bloggers


Thursday, May 17, 2007
Stop the GOP Senate Cave-in: Call 202-225-3121 (Bumped)
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 12:30 PM

(We're going to keep this up top for most of the day.  Lots of fresh blogging below!)

John McCain's gift that keeps on giving --the McCain-Kennedy coalition of those blind to border security-- is getting close to its unveiling. Calling Rudy, Mitt and especially Fred Thompson: Help stop this bill.

I posted the Senate GOP's leaked "talking points" here.

Powerline's Paul Mirengoff reviewed them and concluded:

Any Republican candidate who is on board with the projected deal should receive no consideration from conservatives as a presidential nominee.

He's correct of course, and that means Senator McCain suffers another blow to an already deeply troubled campaign. This deal --which takes down about half of the fence that was mandated last fall-- is the result of the McCain-Kennedy absurdity that McCain and Lindsey Graham pushed through the Judiciary Committee and then the Senate and which froze out serious border security as part of a comprehensive bill. Now the greatly reduced Senate GOP caucus is running for cover not realizing that the only cover they have is to stand and fight for enforcement first in the form a fully funded 700 miles of fence, the completion of which --the completion of which-- would trigger regularization of illegal aliens in an era of new stiff employer sanctions and counterfeit-proof identification card. The key here is specificity on the triggers, and the vague assurances offered in the talking points are just so many red flags because they are not specific in any way.

If there aren't 41 Republican senators willing to fight for the common sense solution, the Senate GOP will be staggered again, just as it was by John Warner's and Susan Collins' attempt to agree to slow surrender in Iraq some months ago. Apparently the bulk of the Senate Republicans simply do not understand that an opposition party is supposed to oppose bad laws, not attempt to merely dilute them.

Michelle Malkin has many links, but despite the obvious anger in the ranks of the party's base, this bill will move quickly unless stopped immediately. Call 202-225-3121 and ask for the offices of Mitch McConnell, Trent Lott or Jon Kyl, the three leaders of the GOP in the upper chamber. Surrendering half the fence is the first step in surrendering half the seats they are trying to defend in '08, and Gordon Smith, Norm Coleman, John Sununu and others ought to be demanding the caucus stop this national security and political insanity. The Senate GOP can and should filibuster any bill that dismantles half the fence before it was built, and any bill that is vague on the details of amnesty-lite.

The Senate GOP may believe that the anti-illegal immigration absolutists are far noisier than their numbers justify, and they would be right. But the common-sense conservatives hate being told that the best the Senate GOP can do is lose gracefully. They will be the folks outraged by the sell-out of the security fence.

The only good news about the bill as outlined in the talking points is that it will effectively end the McCain campaign.

The spotlight is also on Fred Thompson. He was quick to respond to Michael Moore and this cheered conservatives. I hope he takes this opportunity to speak as clearly to his former colleagues about the need to stop this law in the Senate.

UPDATE: The WSJ.com details the Senate GOP's collapse (subscription required):

The White House and Senate negotiators have narrowed their differences on immigration overhaul to a point where they hope to announce a final deal Thursday on legislation that can be brought to the Senate floor next week.

Commerce Secy. Carlos Gutierrez was in the Capitol Wednesday evening in an effort to resolve final details impacting agriculture workers. But the more decisive meeting came earlier in a second-floor corner office in the Senate Dirksen building where about a half-dozen key Democratic and Republican participants met with Mr. Gutierrez and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who has spearheaded the talks for the administration with Joel Kaplan, a top White House domestic policy adviser.

"Everybody in the room understood that tomorrow morning is the final time," said Sen. Edward Kennedy (D., Mass.), who has led the Democratic side. "Everyone realizes that if everyone in there wants to get a resolution of this in a positive way, it's all possible."

"Tonight's the night. We'll know by morning," Mr. Kennedy said. "If this thing goes over the weekend, it's finished."

The core bill, like the immigration overhaul effort that failed in the last Congress, promises millions of undocumented workers already in the U.S. a path to citizenship, something conservatives have criticized in the past as amnesty. But to pacify these complaints, the new measure offers a series of political tradeoffs that address other concerns on the right: chiefly border security and chain migration.

And from The Washington Post:

Senate negotiators reached a tentative agreement yesterday on a broad overhaul of the nation's immigration laws that would offer virtually all of the nation's 12 million undocumented workers a route to legal status while shifting migration preferences away from the extended families of citizens toward more skilled and educated workers.

The editors of The National Review have an editorial up denouncing the deal:

“The fight over legalization, or ‘amnesty,’ is all but over,” exults the Manhattan Institute’s Tamar Jacoby, and the “yahoos” who oppose it have been routed. She is right about who has won, at least as far as the Senate is concerned. The Bush-Kennedy immigration “reform,” which is now expected to win broad bipartisan support in that chamber, provides legal status for an estimated 12 million illegal aliens. In exchange for the massive, unpopular amnesty, Senator Kennedy is willing to engage in a little “border dressing” that purports to beef up enforcement of current laws barring illegal entry and the employment of illegal workers. As in the past, supporters of border and workplace enforcement will get the rhetoric, illegal aliens the prize, and taxpayers the huge tab.




View in ascending order View in descending order
ShiningCity writes: Friday, May, 18, 2007 7:12 PM
Silly Marfans
Any Mexican that comes here illegally is a criminal.
NickB1967 writes: Friday, May, 18, 2007 11:20 AM
Jabberwock: Better Late Than Never
"How's the revolt working out for Hugh?

Hugh's the guy running after the army yelling "Wait! Wait! I'm your leader!""

At least he finally is starting to wise up. Better Late Than Never....
Marfans writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 10:19 PM
ShiningCity writes
"Do I think the borders need to be patrolled? Yes. Against criminals. Not Mexicans"

All we need to do is put up signs along the boarder stating NO CRIMINALS BEYOND THIS POINT...ALL OTHERS COME ON IN...FREE MONEY,MEDICAL CARE JUST AHEAD ON YOUR LEFT.
jabberwock writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 9:59 PM
What is it about the internet that bring
"What is it about the internet that brings out the John Birchers and other assorted tinfoil hat wearers "

What are you crying about, athingortwo? You fit right in.
jabberwock writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 9:55 PM
"I fail to see the downside of having an
"an extra 12 million tax payers in our country."

Shining City, please post the city you live in so we can send a few million to be your close neighbors.
jabberwock writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 9:50 PM
TurnerBurn
How's the revolt working out for Hugh?

Hugh's the guy running after the army yelling "Wait! Wait! I'm your leader!"
jabberwock writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 9:47 PM
colster
I wish the Amnesty Groupies would make up their mind. One minute we are "nativists", the next we are "absolutists". I'll vote for "patriots".
jabberwock writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 9:45 PM
Harold C. Hutchison
blames "absolutists" for this fiasco.

You are kidding, right Harold? Aside from your assumption of an amazing ability to identify cause with effect, your claim on its face inverts logic.

But that should be little surprise, inverted reasoning has been a hallmark of the small GOP faction that has been fawning over illegal immigrants.
Jon.nine writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 7:32 PM
A closer look
The illegals will have to pay if they want to play in the US anymore? Give me a brake.

How about deferred payment: that will be for the ones who have the means to pay.

Try: means tested--you can already smell that stink in the air.
NickB1967 writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 6:57 PM
BillT
"Building a fence doesn't address those solutions."

Oh yes it does--by cutting off the supply of illegal aliens.

Moreover, building a fence makes other enforcement efforts that much less overwhelmed.
BillT writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 6:26 PM
Sammy
"BillT -- are you serious? Why is there a demand for illegal labor? The answer: Because it's cheap, complicit, and unregulated."

Thanks for picking up the rhetorical flourish:

So then the answer is to make the use of illegals Expensive, illicit (as in jail time) and severely regulated. Building a fence doesn't address those solutions.
Jon.nine writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 6:14 PM
Not so long ago
Governor Swartznegger proposed a massive omnibus piece of legislation that sought to solve the problem of everything. I don't recall the specifics but I certainly understand the suspicious nature of Californians who voted it down.

Now take a look at the Amnesty Bill. The reason it cannot work is because it seeks to solve the problems of everything, which means conversely it will do nothing, except its least common denominator, provide amnesty.

It asks for an unbelievable leap of faith from the American people even though the Government on this issue has done nothing to deserve it. Nothing.

Which is why the Fence and enforcing the boarder must, enforcing immigration law, must come first. Nothing else is acceptable.

Comprehensive reform is a carcass that can't be, must not be, revived. No zombies allowed.

NickB1967 writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 5:53 PM
athingortwo
Oh, PUH-LEEZE. That "empirical evidence" plainly indicates the failure of "comprehensive" Hispandering!

Wow, Bush bends over forwards and STILL only gets 44% (which, in Electoral College terms, is still a very decisive loss!)

Net takers of social services tend to vote Democrat, no matter what. They are obviously not bad people, mind you, but they are poorer and hence net takers. Always remember that.

As for Congress? While Republicans lost 11.5 percent of their House seats, or one in nine, the Immigration Caucus of Tom Tancredo, the House border patriots, lost 6.7 percent of its complement, only one in 16. Among Republicans given an "F" by border patriots, however, fully 25 percent lost their re-election bids, a bloodbath among the open-borders-and-amnesty-now crowd.

So why did A FEW border patriot Republicans lose? Scandals, war weariness, and a Bushyrovie elite that stabbed the border patriots in the back. Why did Graf and Hayworth lose? Jim Kolbe, the GOP congressman whom Graf chased out of the race, refused to endorse them, and Mehlman's RNC gutted them in the primary, that's why.

Imitation, it is said, is the sincerest form of flattery. Thus it is a testament to the popular appeal of the stop-the-invasion stand that Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton voted for 700 miles of security fence.

Republicans can't out-pander the "Party of Pandering"! We offer amnesty for 5 million Mexicans, the Democrats make it TEN, and offer them more Medicaid!

Moreover, what we border patriots want is not enforcement "only", it is Enforcement First.

THEN, and only then, can we discuss what sort of immigration policy we can have, and contemplate legalization with a fine of those who will by then be trapped up here, north of the border.

Without secure borders, we cannot choose our immigration policy; Mexico and other nations will choose it for us. And at that point, we lose our country, given the Reconquista Treason element we saw last May Day. An element that is all too large, no matter how much you pander.

It is really as simple as that. Why can you not comprehend this?





Virginia Patriot writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 5:49 PM
Ignore athingortwoorthreeorfourorfiveor
Long winded and convinced of their own infallibilty.
Bill Cross writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 5:48 PM
Actually athingortwo
I ask restaurant owners about employing third-worlders - read illegal aliens - for health reasons. Many of the border-hoppers haven't been been checked by a physician for communicable diseases even as they work in the restaurant industry. It stands to reason that if a restaurant owner will defy employment law by hiring an illegal alien he'll most certainly defy local ordiances mandating a health check before hiring a worker.

I think my logic on that issue is solid. Maybe you disagree. However, it's interesting that you immediatley assumed that I was a nativist (is that bad?) or worse - drum roll please - a racist - by asking a simple question.

Nevertheless, it can hardly be stated that the republican party is in the hands of a small minority of 'radical nativists.' Indeed, the republican party is in the hands of a small minority of business owners and lobby groups. The 'radical nativists' as you call them have no voice. Nor does any other group for that matter as evidenced by the desires of the 'base' and the decisions and direction of the republican party leadership.
ShiningCity writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 5:47 PM
Nick
I'm a white female. I have said I do not support citizenship for criminals who are here. Period.

Okay, now let me ask you this as an illustration of a point:

the people who are here now are not on welfare because they are ineligible--yet, they remain. Yes, they use our healthcare system, and that is a problem. (As a physician who trained in Texas, I'm intimately familiar with that problem. But that is not sustenance living....let's stick with the meeting of daily needs...)

Why do you automatically assume that they will GO on welfare once they become citizens?
----
However, I'm betting you are an "evil white male".
----

Do you think white males are the only people who have the inherent willfullness to want to succeed beyond that of the welfare state?

I think the position that Mexican immigrants (let's be honest, that's who we're talking about here) are going to be democrats because they don't have the inherent drive to be successful--rather, they are "seduced by the easy way out, even if it is a dead end"--is not the right way to think.

Do I think the borders need to be patrolled? Yes. Against criminals. Not Mexicans.



colster writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 5:43 PM
athingortwo's name calling
Hmm. Those who of us who are against illegal immigration and its causes are a "small minority of nativists"? Well, that elevates the tone of the discussion.

Where do you draw the line between us and the rest of the world that wants to either come here or destroy us? Or don't you?
ShiningCity writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 5:35 PM
Careful Dunn
who you have for breakfast. The day we start eating our own is the day we really lose.

You somehow have the understanding that I think it is fine to give 12 million criminals citizenship. But, I have been careful to construct posts to specifically refute that idea.
I do NOT support giving any sort of legalization to anybody who is a criminal in our country. I think the "we can't deport them all" idea is nonsense, and I advocate finding the resources to deport all illegals.

My position has been solely this: that we make the immigration process easier, so that people can become citizens before a decade passes.

When I say "12 million taxpayers", it is with the assumption that they go through a citizenship process from their home country, then come here to live. If we speed up the process dramatically, there's a good chance we'll have 12 million "newly legalized" citizens.

In consideration of that fact: now is it a bad idea to allow them to become citizens? Or are you assuming that once deported, most will not want to come back?









Jon.nine writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 5:30 PM
As if
An iota of any provision of this abomination will actually be enforced. How in the world can you seriously suggest enforcement when you will not even enforce the boarder.

Hello, the Fence is both practical, symbolic, and meaningful. It is an actual statement of "Don't Tread On Me."

If we are not willing to make that statement then no one will take anything else we say on the matter seriously. Nor should they.

This Amnesty Bill must be flatly rejected.
athingortwo writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 5:13 PM
NickB1967 ...
Actually, the "empirical evidence" is that George W. Bush, a border State Republican Governor who ran twice on promises of comprehensive immigration reform, managed to received the largest percentages of Hispanic votes ever recorded for a Republican Presidential candidate... he received a smaller percentage in 2000, in which he barely won an Electoral College majority (and in which he lost the popular vote to Al Gore) ... and then in 2004, GWB won a significant majority of both the popular and Electoral College vote, while achieving an all time record 44% of the Hispanic vote.

Then, the Republican Congress, being goaded by the virulently anti-immigration types, butted heads with GWB and passed an enforcement-only immigration bill in 2006, with no provisions whatsoever for dealing with the overall illegal immigration problem, and gee, guess what? The Republicans got their butts kicked in the 2006 Congressional elections, with the Hispanic vote (which accounted for nearly the entire loss of Republican voting percentages from the successful 2004 election) dropped back down to pre-GWB levels of 30% for Republicans.

That's the empirical evidence ... and it cannot be much plainer than that.

Like it or not, if the Republican Party insists in making itself smaller by dissing Hispanics - the largest and fastest growing minority in American (and I'm talking about legal voters ... not illegal immigrants) then it can resign itself to permanent minority status.

And Jamil - arguing for comprehensive immigration reform is not about arguing on behalf of illegal immigration. Any politically acceptable immigration reform bill must (as I believe this bill does - although the "devil is in the details" which none of us know just yet) continue to clamp down on illegal immigration, which has already dropped significantly in the last year since the 2006 bill went into effect. You have no need to feel insulted by use of the term "virulently anti-immigration" if you are not yourself virulently anti-immigrant (not likely given your status). At the same time, anyone who would deny that there is not a great deal of virulent, nativist sentiment behind a good deal of the most vociferous opposition to comprehensive immigration reform is fooling himself.

Just read the comments like the one above by a poster above who wrote "I ask the owner if he employs third-worlders" - and if the answer is yes he moves on. What is it about refusing to eat at restaurants that employ "third-worlders" that indicates any concern whatsoever about a worker's legal status? There are millions of former "third-worlders" who are full citizens of the United States, and just as entitled to respect and fair treatment as the presumably-native-born writer of that statement. Maybe the poster didn't mean his statement to sound that way, but he certainly sounded pretty adamant that his issue is about the national origin and not necessarily the current legal status of the people involved. Those kinds of statements certainly reveal, perhaps in a Freudian-slip manner, concerns that go far beyond a worker's legal status. It certainly sounds like nativism, if not racism to me. If such statements as these, which can be found on boards all over the conservative blogosphere (and undoubtedly will be peaking to a crescendo in the next few weeks and months), are not intended to convey nativism and racism, then the people who are writing them ought to cool off and reconsider. And the rest of us ought to be very aware that a Party that is perceived to be in the clutches of a small minority of radical nativists is not a national party that can win national elections, because it will be a party that is repulsive to a majority of Americans.

Jon.nine writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 5:08 PM
Republican minority is unwrapped
In wrapping the grave problem of boarder security and enforcing immigration laws with the Pandora's box of all the other misery commiserate with illegal immigration, the Senate Republicans have become unwrapped.
Joe writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 5:05 PM
President Bush loves it!
The President is out there saying it is the best thing ever. It is the Bush-Kennedy bill for a reason. What's next--is Senator Kennedy going to take President Bush for a night drive on Martha's Vineyard?

McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney all support it. Hugh does not want to discuss the Romney immigration card right now--because that will screw up his motives in attacking John McCain.

Looks like just Tancredo and Hunter oppose it. Ron Paul probably opposes it too.
Ex-tex writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 4:47 PM
I don't get the RINOs but I get Bush
It's easy to understand Bush's immigration stance when you consider his constituents- Big Texas Business- that's it, that's all!
When they are happy- he's happy! They wanted tax cuts, military contracts and an unending illegal immigrant labor supply.

He gave it to 'em!

Impeach Bush!
Throw out the RINO Senators!
Jon.nine writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 4:41 PM
Proposal
Every Republican senator who votes yea for this abomination should be challenged in the primaries by a conservative.

Because apparently many of these senators really don't feel the conservative base is a relevant force by means of passion, ideas, and inspiration for leading and preserving this country's freedom.
jamil writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 4:29 PM
illegal immigration is not legal
I got my green card legally. It make me sick to hear comments like this
"virulently anti-immigration types".

Any person with average IQ understands that there is a difference between legal immigration (good) and illegal immigration (bad).
Getting 100 million uneducated, unskilled welfare recipients demanding every benefit imaginable is the end of this country.

NickB1967 writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 4:28 PM
athingortwo
First, MASSIVE kudos for "Pulosi Galore" -- that's an awesome zinger and I shall have to record it for posterity!

However, you are buying into the "Winning Through Hispandering" delusion, in the face of all empirical evidence. It won't work.
Bill Cross writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 4:22 PM
Why get upset
It ought to be obvious that the voice of the people in the 'notion' of America does not matter. The chamber of commerce, construction lobby, restaurant lobby and ag lobby dictate policy. Everybody can huff and puff and get mad but your voice is irrelevant. So enjoy the show as the 'notion' unravels.

As for me: my conscience is clean. I don't employ any third-worlders. I mow my own yard, clean my own house, trim my own trees and eat at restaurants that employ legal labor. As for this latter - how do I know ? I ask the owner if he employs third-worlders. If the first word out of his mouth isn't 'no' then I move on. It takes effort but it's a game with me.

So folks - accept the obvious. The gig for what you think America ought to be is over. Enjoy your life and quit worrying. Your opinion doesn't matter to the leadership of the 'notion' of America.

Have a nice day.
The Mechanical Eye writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 4:18 PM
Fear and Anger
Oh, the radios all throughout the southwest are going to spontaneously explode this afternoon.

None of it will go anywhere -- after yelling at your audience to call your congressman for the 1096th time the Faithful start to lose motivation. And it doesn't come close to the drive the illegals have for their own economic survival.

Their drive beats your drive. Sorry.

http://www.themechanicaleye.com

DU

Joe writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 4:10 PM
Pasadena Phil
You wrote:

"Whether you believe Hugh is being insincere or disengenuous on this issue, he is right on McCain. This new bill is just a rehash of the McCain-Kennedy bill with a new name. We know from the debate that McCain does not, and never has supported amnesty. What he has always advocated for is banana. This bill has the stink of McCain all over it. It's up to Fred to take him and Giuliani out."

I like Fred. I have his bumpersticker even. I ordered extras and gave them to friends (who liked them too).

I am pro immigration. I think it is a good thing. What I am against is illegal immigration. But when you have a system that only allows a small amount of legals--you create a vast underground labor market of illegals. I know you hate amnesty--but is a fine of $5000, a requirement to register and pay back taxes, and a requirement to leave the country to perfect your application amnesty? Do you really think kicking these millions out and essentially permanently putting them out helps? I agree many of them should be put out permanently--but based on behavior, not just because they came to the USA for a better life.
athingortwo writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 4:10 PM
the hotheads are out in force today
Aside from the calls to impeach Bush, string up the GOP Senators, and launch nuclear war on Hispanics, it's good to see that the cooler heads are prevailing here on hughhewitt.com! Not!

What is it about the internet that brings out the John Birchers and other assorted tinfoil hat wearers and such that seem to overwhelm the comment pages these days.

Not that I can ever get through to the virulently anti-immigration types in an attempt to have a civil discussion on this subject, but geesh ... don't you think you guys ought to at least read the darn bill before you hit the nuclear launch buttons?

For all those who are trying to shame Senator Kyl into dropping this compromise bill into the crapper, perhaps you ought to stop and consider for just one moment that this man - a guy who has been acknowledged by almost everybody on all sides of the immigration debate for years now to be a "hardliner" (as some here put it) on the subject - is in fact the Republican leader who's been driving this proposed solution in the negotiated compromise bill. If he has been so trustworthy on immigration before, why is it so impossible for you to believe that his effort is not utterly without merit now?

Many of the Pubby bandwagon-riders who hang out here ditched George W. Bush long ago over this issue, as well as many of these same people have also trashed him over the war ... and now they whine about the lost election of 2006, as if their forced Party suicide pact that resulted in an enforcement-only bill that passed in Congress last year didn't have an awful lot to do with plummeting Hispanic support at the polls last November - lost voters who put Congress in the hands of Crazy Harry and Pulosi Galore, thank you very much, guys!

I agree with Joe that the primary reason that Hugh Hewitt has gone nuclear over this bill - unlike his strong support given to the previous failed comprehensive immigration bill effort last year - is so that he can use this issue to discredit one of the two principal competitors for his beloved Governor Flip/Flop. And when one parses what the Big Flopper said about immigration policy the other night in the debate, it's awfully hard to find much daylight between him and McCain in the details on the compromise that have been released so far. But what the hey, Hugh will pivot and flip and flop at least as much as his guy if that will somehow drag down McCain's numbers momentarily.

In the meantime, about 2/3 of the posters on this thread really oughta take a valium or two and count to three. This kind of Kos-like anger can't be good for your health!
Dunn writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 3:58 PM
ShingingCity
Wrong.

I'm fine with current levels of immigration, or even higher levels. I do think that we should be selective about who we let in, but not in a political way - but in a skills way. This is our country. We have every right to only let who we want here come here - the best and the brightest. Other countries do the same.

Already, the United States allows more legal immigration than all other nations in the world combined - so I don't buy the arugment that 1 million per year is "not enough" one bit.

And I don't know how you got the notion that I'm against immigration from my posts.

I'm against ILLEGAL immigration. Shouldn't we all be? Or is there a list of laws that it's okay to break now, and even be rewarded for breaking(jump up in line for citizenship over those doing it the right way). Why don't we just stop paying taxes? Maybe the government will grant us amnesty in ten years!

Laws should mean something. And we have every right as a sovereign nation to control our borders.

The ideaology of those coming here is not a reason to keep them out, and I'm not using it as such. But it is a dramatic SYMPTOM of what will occur if we disregard the rule of law and reward criminal behavoir en masse. It is okay to point that out.

The reasons to oppose this from a policy perspective are many - it is illegal, we have a right to be sovereign and let in who we want to let in, there's no reason to encourage another 20 million with this amnesty like we did with the last one, and it is completely unnecessary - since employee sanctions and enforcing existing laws alone is all we'd need to stop the problem and get most of the illegals to go home on their own.

Those are the real policy reasons to oppose this. Warning about the results in terms of the minority status of our party is not a reason to oppose the policy on its own - but it is a wake up call to those who are poo-pooing the rule of law or to those who don't think this lawbreaking is "a big deal", like you apparently.

Lastly, as for your comment on my "automatic assumption that these people are all going to be welfare/charity cases/Chavez support" which you "reject based on personal experience" - that's just silly. And sounds teenagerish of you.

Personal experience is just anecdotal experience, and that is not "data" or representative of a larger truth, as I'm sure you know.

My numbers and thoughts are based on ACTUAL DATA. The majority of these people coming in will be immediately eligible for welfare becuase they are almost all UNEDUCATED, UNSKILLED labor. The majority of these people don't even have a high school diploma. It's a welfare state-lover's paradise, which is why the Dems are so hot to trot for it.

And they are mostly Leftists. They already vote Democrat, and like I said, Pew Research shows that even those that identify themselves as Republicans are MORE LIBERAL than white liberals here.

Regardless of what you want to be true, this is a very hard-left, liberal group we're inviting in here even though they've broken our laws, and they will change the political landscape of this country forever - to a hard left orientation - if we allow this to happen.

It's just plain demographics.

NickB1967 writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 3:57 PM
ShiningCity
"It doesn't describe me. And I came from a very blue-collar working class home. I never, ever considered the "easy way" out."

Good for you. However, I'm betting you are an "evil white male". Remember what I said about the destructive "identity politics" of the Left, which has taken over just about all of academia and most of the media. Until that changes, we HAVE to close the borders.

Note that it is NOT about race as much as it is about ideology. Note how Cuban Americans, Korean Americans, Vietnamese Americans, and the like are similarly marginalized by the leftist elites (and get their stores burned down by underclass leftists), because they know the communist tricks all too well.

Note how African Americans who break out of this trap are automatically marginalized.



Jon.nine writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 3:56 PM
Very very not good
As I've mentioned before I have friends that stretch the gambit of opinion.

Let me mention one that I think is fairly typical of the median in US political culture.

He claims to be independent, but really I think he is slightly left of center, but that's typical of the mean, slightly right, slightly left.

He has typically liberal views on abortion, and he has typically conservative views on illegal immigration. No actually he has pretty stringent views on illegal immigration (so does my furthest to the left friend by the way).

I don't even need to speak to them to know what they think about this deal--it stinks. And that's the printable part.

Now for the really left friend this won't change a thing. But for the median friend this spells big time, and I do mean big time, FAILURE to secure his confidence.

How clueless can the Congressional Republicans be?
jamil writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 3:47 PM
final battle
I'm still hoping for a miracle. Rush and Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson arranges a press conference and takes the stand with american people and rejects amnesty.

1) Impeach Senor Bush
2) Shut down the House
3) Filibuster in the senate


Amnesty means permanent high taxes, liberal policies, vast entitlement programs, spanish language (taxpayer funded translators at every clinic/school/subway station etc).
ShiningCity writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 3:42 PM
Nick
Does this describe you?

"And people of all races are seduced by the easy way out, even if it is a dead end."

It doesn't describe me. And I came from a very blue-collar working class home. I never, ever considered the "easy way" out.

Let me ask you: why do the two of you think that we can't fight this fight based on ideas? You don't want to let people become citizens because they will be democrats? Yeah, it's a tough ballgame. It's going to take work of a different sort than what we're used to: which is going to the golf course, talking about how great our life is, and casting our vote. That won't work with these people. But the automatic assumption that they will all be democrats because Pelsoi wants to give them some welfare completely removes the basis of conservative ideology: the assumption that inherently we WANT to be better, be more, do more. They aren't missing that because they're not born on our soil.

ShiningCity writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 3:34 PM
Dunn
Social security is an issue that shouldn't be brought into this issue because we don't have enough of that for the people here already. It's a dead issue--after my generation.

If this country spends more on resources for citizens than it receives in tax dollars, then we're in a pile, regardless of how many people are citizens, aren't we?

You make an automatic assumption that these people are all going to be welfare/charity cases/Chavez supporters. I reject that based on personal experience. Make no mistake: I think the current immigration talk is crap, if for no other reason than the men campaigned on the fence, so they'd better damn well build one.

BUT, it sounds as though you simply want to cap the number of people coming into this country, even if they do so legally, if they don't vote Republican. And, while I am a staunch conservative, that is not the way of the US.



NickB1967 writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 3:29 PM
Shining City: Noble idea, but fat chance
With the notable exception of Cuban Americans, most Latinos will go Democrat no matter what we do. Here's why:

1. They are net takers of social services, and net takers vote Democrat. It's really as simple as that. They are obviously not bad people, mind you, but they are poorer and hence net takers. Always remember that.

2. The Demunist Commiecrat element of the Democrat Party, which now controls that party, will seduce them with the feel-good but utterly destructive "identity politics" of Multi-culturalism.

You know, hate whitey, you owe us, acquit the criminal who happens to be of our color, gimmie gimmie gimmie socialism. Most of the African American population is hopelessly lost to this.

Multi-culturalism should really be called multi-communism, given that it is just communist propaganda in racial terms.

And I say Demunist Commiecrats for a reason. Michael Moore and Howard Dean now run that party. Noam Chomsky is their Godhead.

While it is true that a good many Latinos are disgusted with the Homo-crat element in the Democrat Party, that won't be enough to overcome the seduction of welfare and of an easy scapegoat to hate, which is what multiculturalism is.

I am all for fighting the poison of multiculturalism. But don't you see? The Demunists WANT more of an imported underclass, non English speaking, to create a bigger need for the social(ist) programs and to further their goal of Balkanizing America. Mass immigration and lack of assimilation is their tool!

I used to wonder why people who harped about the need for a "living wage" supported immigration policies that reduced wages! But upon reflection I know why they do it; to import a larger and larger underclass that they can manipulate. Heads they win, tails we lose....don't you see?

Because the Demunists will say, "vote for us, and you don't even have to become Americans." And people of all races are seduced by the easy way out, even if it is a dead end.

Withy the notable excpetion of Cuban Americans, Republicans get about 1/3 of the Latino vote only, no matter what they do. Underclass votes Demunist.
calmom writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 3:28 PM
Just called Kyl's office
I called Kyl's office and sorry to say, I got through. I was hoping that the phone would have been jammed with calls. But the staffer who answered did tell me that the calls were running heavily against what Kyl did. Not that it will make any difference.
ShiningCity writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 3:27 PM
Those who will sit out....
Okay, I don't get this sitting out business except as a form of protest.

Explain this to me because from my perspective:

If two boys are running to put dog crap in my yard, but one is going to put less there than the other....if I just stay inside ignoring both of them, when it's over, no matter how it turns out, I still have crap in my yard. It's an issue of how much crap. And when it comes to shoveling crap, the less of it, the better.....is how I look at it. The choice of "no crap" doesn't exist.



Dunn writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 3:26 PM
ShingingCity - you're misinformed
"I fail to see the downside of having an extra 12 million tax payers in our country."

Studies have shown that these illegals, if legalized, will be a huge NET NEGATIVE on our countries tax base, becuase they will use far more services than they will help pay for through taxes.

Adding them in to Social Security alone will cost us $2.5 billion more than they will add - just in SS. And that's money we don't have.

Do you still "fail to see the downside"?

I admire your optimism, but there's still time to stop this thing. Isn't it better to stop the importation of tens of millions of hard leftists that will get promptly on the dole and be extremely difficult to "talk into our side"?(Just look how easy that has been for us with black voters...)

Isn't it better to stop that before it happens, instead of letting it happen(for no good reason), and then be tasked with the mammoth and decades-long task of retaking the idealogy in our country as we slog through trying to convert the Latino base of Democrat voters to Republicans?

It may NEVER be accomplished(again, look at the black vote), and if it is accomplished, "convincing" them to become Conservatives will take DECADES. It's just a numbers game, and the numbers are so overwhelming in the Democrats favor here that even our best efforts may either fail at worst, or take generations at best.

I don't want to lose America - either forever or for "only generations". Do you?

We need to stop this NOW.

Quint writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 3:26 PM
Romney "card" for Illegal Aliens
VoiceOfReason - On Hughs show yesterday, Romney said his plan had some type of "card" for illegal aliens who had "special circumstances". What illegal alien would not claim a "special circumstance"? Once you had the card you could stay in the US. The Romney plan is amnesty. Romney conveniently forgot to talk about this "card" plan during the debate. He did say he would "tell" the illegal aliens to leave the country though.

All of the debate regarding current GOP candidates means nothing as our current conservative GOP president will make sure he signs any bill which has amnesty for illegal aliens.

It is of course Tancredo's fault that our conservative GOP President will sign an amnesty bill and give the Democrat party potentially 30-40 million new future voters.
NickB1967 writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 3:24 PM
Manfred, get real
A wall to keep undesirables ( car theft ring criminals, drug traffickers, and border jumping criminals) OUT,is NOT the same as a wall to keep people IN.

Sorry, there are limits to your free marketeering. National Security is one of them.

You greedheads and Wall Street Journal types just don't get it. You are no better than goo-goo liberals on the immigration issue.

I am reminded what Lenin said: "When the time comes to hang the capitalists, they will sell us the rope with which to do it."

And now, when the time comes for the Demunist Commiecrats to impose socialism on us, the immigration romantics and cheap labor greedhead Wall Street Journal types will have imported the voting bloc with which to do it.

Great, just great...
colster writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 3:24 PM
Re: LOL!
HNAV: We almost got an unsatisfactory immigration deal last year when the GOP owned the House, the Senate, and the White House. This is why conservatives stayed home last year. Why support GOP candidates who vote like Dems? Your GOP contribution funded Lincoln Chaffee, Arlen Specter, and Chuck Hagel for crying out loud.

Get more bang for your buck. Take the same dollars you would give to the Party and target it directly at candidates you can count on instead.
Juandimensional writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 3:20 PM
Romney and Illegals
VOR writes:
"Hugh, how exactly is this deal any different than the one Romney articulated during the debate this week?"

Romney has plenty of time to see where the wind blows on this, and Hugh knows it. His position can "evolve" over the next few months. By taking his wishy-washy stance now, if there is a large enough conservative swing against the agreement, then Romney can say he said he wants them to go home. If the conservatives can't raise a big enough stink, he can still claim he is for legalization. It's a tidy system.

Incidentally, whoever out there thinks that Hillary will never get past 49%, regardless of who we put up, is fooling themselves. I've been a Republican for about ten years, and the Clintons are the ones who freed me from being a Democrat. But since 2004 I have kicked myself for voting for Bush. I would never have voted for Kerry, but with my second vote I now own all the corruption, the Foley's and Foggos and Cunninghams and Gonzaleses and Goodlings and I'm sick of it. And I'm "center right" too. I won't vote for Hillary, but if the right wing of the party puts up a Machiavellian shape-shifter, I will stay home. And so will a lot of other people. And the conservatives will be responsible for Hillary's election.
Fever Swamp writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 3:20 PM
HNAV
If republican senators would have held together this bill goes nowhere.

A bill similar to this would have gone down even with victory in '06.
ShiningCity writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 3:16 PM
Joe
You're right on--in my view.

"What we need is a fence, tougher enforcement of hiring regulations(with stiff fines for employers who violate them). We also need to greatly expand legal immigration--which is way too low."

---------

I feel certain my goose will be cooked here for this position but:

we cede these immigrant votes too easily to the dems. They are ripe for picking. One way to start is to look like WE are their saviors, not Kennedy. You do that by speeding up the process to citizenship while, at the same time, upholding the law (and expanding it, if need be, to better border patrol).

(The way NOT to look like a savior is to allow Kennedy to give criminals citizenship while we espouse building a fence to keep them out. I agree with the fence, but this idea has to be partnered with SOMETHING SUBSTANTIAL.)

I fail to see the downside to having an extra 12 million tax payers in our country (I do disagree with this handing out of citizenship in this bill, however.) But, for those that want to come, make it faster for them. We can uphold the law and stream-line citizenship at the same time: we're the USA, for goodness sakes.

As for them becoming democrat voters, that's a defeatist attitude. If we want them, then we go and GET THEM--> especially after we help them become citizens, THEN we go to Walmart and talk conservative philosophy with them. We're certainly not going to get them as voters if we just assume they'll vote democrat, then we go to the golf course and say, "Yeah, that's a real shame all these Mexicans are supporting Hillary."

Seems to me the best way to consider this problem is how to see this as a gain for us, not consider how we're going to hide out and not vote. But, I'm always the one seeing the glass half-full.

Pasadena Phil writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 3:14 PM
Joe
Whether you believe Hugh is being insincere or disengenuous on this issue, he is right on McCain. This new bill is just a rehash of the McCain-Kennedy bill with a new name. We know from the debate that McCain does not, and never has supported amnesty. What he has always advocated for is banana. This bill has the stink of McCain all over it. It's up to Fred to take him and Giuliani out.
NickB1967 writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 3:13 PM
Harold C. Hutchison: WRONG, WRONG WRONG
Indulging in their favorite pastime, cherry-picking evidence, the immigration romantics claim that the losses in Arizona by Rep. J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, both hardliners, prove that Arizona and America reject a law-and-order approach to illegal immigration.

Yet Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, a hardliner, won re-election easily.

Why did Graf and Hayworth lose? Jim Kolbe, the GOP congressman whom Graf chased out of the race, refused to endorse them, and Mehlman's RNC gutted them in the primary, that's why.

Let's also demolish the nonsense about how Republicans lost 8 points of the Latino vote because of their stances on immigration. In reality, Republicans lost 7-8 points among just about ALL voting groups, across the board. The immigration romantics and greedheads just don't get it.

Moreover, most Latinos are going to vote Democrat, even hardcore Demunist Commiecrat, because they are net takers of social services. Sad, but true. Immigration romantics who believe in victory through "Hispandering" are fools.

Hugh Hewitt is REALLY late coming to this issue; in the past, he has been one of those Hispandering immigration romantic fools. But better late than never.

Perhaps Hugh will get the honesty and apologize to Tom Tancredo, someone to whom Hugh was REALLY rude when Tancredo came on his radio show last month.
Dunn writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 3:12 PM
"Party's Best Interests"???
Are you kidding me?

This ENDS the party by importing tens of millions of new Democrat votes into this country.

If this passes, Conservatism is over.



Pasadena Phil writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 3:08 PM
HNAV
The main movers of amnesty have been Kennedy and Bush. I know. Small point.
Dunn writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 3:07 PM
"Rove's calculations"
Joe,

Rove's calculations are wrong. Just like they were for the 2006 elections, where he helped get us creamed.

The idea that we are going to get a sizeable portion of the Latino vote by helping pass this amnesty is a pipe dream. We will simply not get credit for this - the mainstream media and Latin interest groups who weild power and influence will not let that happen.

Republicans were the ones most responsible for passing the Civil Rights Act, too. Did we get credit for that? How many black people vote for us? It will be the same thing for Latinos.

Latinos are not Conservative people. People say they have "Family Values", yet stats show that their illegitacy rate is 47% and climbing fast.

The Pew Research Center shows that even those Hispanics who identified themselves as Republicans - a small minority - are MORE liberal on taxes and size of government than white liberals! The most conservative among them are more liberal than white liberals!

These are Democrat voters through and through, which is why the Democrats are so hot to trot for this amnesty - once they import tens of millions of hard left voters from socialist countries Conservatism is done for, and the Republican party is the permanent minority party.

But all this is unnecessary. By merely enforcing our own laws and adding tough employee sanctions, most illegals would simply have to go home on their own. Without being able to get a job here they'd have to. No fence or mass deportations necessary.

And then it wouldn't matter about those voters - becuase many of them would've gone home on their own and they will no longer be voters here that the GOP has to worry about "capturing".

It's a fool's notion that the GOP will get any of the Latino vote from this, and the result will be the death of the party as a national force.

The irony is that it's completely unnecessary, too. Because if we merely did the right thing and enforced the law, we wouldn't have to worry about those voters anyway - becuase they wouldn't be here anymore.

HNAV writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 3:06 PM
LOL !
"Don't give to the RNC, NRSC, or any other GOP party organ."

well that is exactly the kind of mindless reactionary folly that empowered Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Party.

get a grip...

the failure to defend the HOUSE with a Republican Majority enabled the Demos to push immigration reform.

HNAV writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 3:04 PM
Hyperbole and Emotion...
Is Tancredo running the Conservative Movement?

Rather sad...

Jumping overboard got into this in the first place, as some foolishly empowered this, by not supporting and voting for the GOP in 2006.
Skeptic of Jingoism writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 3:03 PM
Romney
Time for Mitt to put up or shut up. Start beating the drum loudly about sealing the border or get your haircut back to Massachusetts.
Fever Swamp writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 2:59 PM
And one other thing...
Hugh, you can now take down this bumped thread.

It's over.
Fever Swamp writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 2:57 PM
The whole bunch that pushed this bill
ought to be tried for treason...and this includes the president.

Our politicians are more concerned about their party's best interest instead of the nation's sovereignty and that is an absolute disgrace.
VoiceOfReason writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 2:49 PM
This is the Romney Plan
Hugh, how exactly is this deal any different than the one Romney articulated during the debate this week? Let me remind you what Mitt said:

"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."

Time to write a book on Tom Tancredo, Professor Hewitt?
Joe writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 2:47 PM
What is the GOP position on this?
Rove and his compadres have crunched the demographic numbers. If the GOP does not get a sizable chunk of the Latio vote in America, it is toast.

The question is how do you come up with comprehensive immigration reform that does not alienate a big chunk of voters out there.

Do do not do it by deporting millions of illegals. What we need is a fence, tougher enforcement of hiring regulations(with stiff fines for employers who violate them). We also need to greatly expand legal immigration--which is way too low. Most Latio-Americans would welcome such reforms. You give clear and consistent statements of what you are for and what you are against.

Republicans have not done so because they have sold out to special interests who benefit from illegals.
colster writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 2:44 PM
I'm with Jamil: Stop Feeding the RINOs
Don't give to the RNC, NRSC, or any other GOP party organ. When you donate to the GOP coffers, 60% of your contribution goes to RINOs. Instead, give directly to the candidates with acceptable rankings from Americans For Better Immigration, Citizens Against Government Waste, and Americans for Tax Reform. And if you live in a district with only RINOs on the ballot, don't vote. Just be glad in the fact that you've contributed to real political change somewhere else.
Pasadena Phil writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 2:36 PM
Jamil
Add to that Pelosi's move yesterday to move to secret voting and excluding the GOP on floor discussions, the Republic may be dead very soon. America's business is obviously too important for Americans to know about.
jamil writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 2:33 PM
Shut down the house
The most important piece of legislation of our lifetime agreed secretly behind closed doors and voted without knowing the details. This is treason and end of the republican party (maybe it can continue in local levels, getting occasional state senator seat or school board member seat but nationally, republican party has just achieved permanent minority status.

Even France and the rest of Europe is finally willing to fight against illegal immigration and we surrender unconditionally ??

james23 writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 2:20 PM
McCain on tv
to announce amnesty deal.
No to McCain; no to Bush; no to Kennedy.
Joe writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 2:16 PM
Pasadena Phil
Where are the GOP Senators calling for a filibuster? Are there sixty votes in support of this? Where is Governor Romney calling out from his bully pulpit against this?

Frankly, I am not part of the kick them out of the country crowd when it comes to illegal aliens. I think they should be processed on the road to citizenship provided certain criteria are met (back taxes, a fine, a background check, english speaking, etc.). But I am not going to sit quietly back as Hugh tries to spin this into a John McCain slam so he can prop up Mitt Romney.
ShiningCity writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 2:15 PM
drleadbasedpaint
Our senators are just thankful Kennedy didn't hit them. And they got 1/2 a fence out of a deal.
Tom writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 2:12 PM
Plain Treason
It's treason. That's all it is.
BW writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 2:09 PM
Called the NRSC
and they are not answering the phone....
B
jamil writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 2:06 PM
Impeach Bush if he signs
I have two ideas in mind: (please spread the word)

1) All house republicans who love this country (there must be a few) should support for the impeachement of Bush if he signs this.

2) Republican minority can shut down the House until this amnesty bill is killed. IT CAN BE DONE.
SHUT DOWN THE HOUSE!
Dunn writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 2:01 PM
How to get in touch with Jon Kyl
I took a tip from another commenter in another thread about getting in touch with Jon Kyl. Here's a letter I sent to Michelle Malkin just now explaining how to do so:

"Mrs. Malkin,

Just thought you might want to pass this along - Jon Kyl's Senate office in Washington is not even picking up the phone anymore, and their voice mail is full. Which is good.

The best alternative I have found to still getting our view across is to call his Tucson Office. Here is the number:

Jon Kyl's Tucson Office
Phone: (520) 575-8633

I was able to relay a message to a live staffer. I was polite but firm, saying that I am a fiscal conservative who is moderate on many social issues - I'm for gay marriage, for instance - so I'm not some "hard right winger". I have never voted for a Democrat, and have been an activist Republican, giving lots of money, pounding on doors and manning phone banks in 2004 for Bush. But despite all of that, if this goes through, I am flat out DONE with the Republican party. For real. That's it.

This is no idle threat. And it is not said merely in the heat of anger. It is the truth. I will give no more money, time or even votes to Republicans if this betrayal is foisted upon us.

And what is the point anyway? If this bill passes, we will wilingly import tens of millions of hard left voters from socialist countries, killing Conservatism for good and making Republicans the minority party for the next several decades at least. In one generation we will be another socialist country like in Europe. How else can importing tens of millions of hard leftist Democrat voters go?

And we're doing it on purpose!

I just can't understand how this works... When Republicans have a healthy 55 seat Senate majority, we can't even get a bill passed to drill in ANWR or get the Bush tax cuts made permanent. The Democrats fillibustered anything of significance we wanted. Now, however, when Republicans are barely in the minority, we let the Democrats ram the party's death sentence right down our throats? And we work with them on doing so? Why do Republicans just lay down and take it but Democrats fight? They fought for the smallest things as a minority. We won't even fight to save the future viability of the party. We lay down for something that will make us a permanent minority in this country. Why?

I also asked for a list of laws that are okay to break - and then be rewarded for breaking. For instance, can I just stop paying taxes? Why don't we all do that - just stop paying taxes. Maybe we can get amnesty for that in several years time and in the meantime reap the benefit of keeping everything we earn.

Anyway, that's the way to contact Kyl for now. Call his Tucson office.

Thanks"
jamil writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 2:00 PM
Read my lips: No more money to RINOs
Do not give a dime to these pathetic republicans who vote for this bill. Who cares even if Hillary or dem wins in 2008, this is the final battle!

Fred or Romney has to make a stand today!
Come out forcibly and condemn this McAmnesty bill and promise that you use your executive privileges and bury this bill once elected.


I will vote for whoever dem before McAmnesty. At least dems are honest: They are for amnesty and voting for amnesty. McAmnesty is a liar. IMPEACH BUSH NOW for whatever reason, maybe he can be stopped. Republican senators and congressmen should be able to pressure Bush and threaten to support impeachment if he signs this.
drleadbasedpaint writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 1:51 PM
BETRAYED (AGAIN)
We as Americans deserve to have someone actually represent us. We don't expect Democrats to do what's best for the nation, but we (for some reason) expect Republicans to do it. I am sick of having to vote for the "Best Bad Choice" and have these stinkin' filthy Republicans go to Washington acting like Democrats.

Apparently these traitors still have not learned the lesson of 2006 - to their detriment and to that of the entire country.

HOW DARE THEY GIVE AMNESTY TO CRIMINALS! HOW DARE THEY CEDE OUR NATION TO FOREIGN INVADERS! HOW DARE THEY LEGITIMIZE 12 MILLION + MORE FREAKIN' DEMOCRAT VOTES!

We must teach them AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN until all of their asses are out on the street.
Sammy writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 1:50 PM
BillT
BillT -- are you serious? Why is there a demand for illegal labor? The answer: Because it's cheap, complicit, and unregulated. I could expound further but really I'm shocked that anyone would find the answers so difficult to find.
colster writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 1:34 PM
S. 1348, Page 668
New immigration judges required to have legal expertise [in] or at least 3 years professional or legal expertise in immigration and nationality law (ie. be a former immigration lawyer friendly to immigrant defendants).
BillT writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 1:24 PM
I have to admit
I find it hard to get worked up about a fence when we don't have anywhere near enough people to patrol it. Get me a fence with a robust border patrol and I'll get a little worked up.

But the one thing I'm not hearing, and I'll admit this may be a little out of the norm, is a serious discussion about WHY there is such a demand for illegal labor. If we get to the bottom of that, we'll find some solutions to the problem.
Pasadena Phil writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 1:12 PM
Joe, I like you but....
Take a day off. This is no conversation for a clinician. If you don't feel the heat, you are missing the point.
jamil writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 1:08 PM
What is Fred's position?
I hear a lot of comments from Fred supporters indicating he is tough on illegal immigration. In fact, he is on record saying that "illegals must have aspirations for citizenship" (check fox news transcript). He is McCain's best buddy so I'm really skeptical about him doing anything against amnesty. Even McCain says he is against amnesty, just like everybody says (yet they support amnesty). Talk is cheap.

Message to Fred/Romney: Show us the leadership and work against amnesty and you will earn our votes.
Empty words ("I'm against amnesty") is not anymore acceptable.


Pasadena Phil writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 1:00 PM
The reason Senators aren't getting calls
They have the phones that are available to the voters permanently off the hook. The only phones that work are those red "hotline" phones connecting them to their big donors. These guys don't care what we think and aren't listening. They are the "House of Lords" and don't feel accountable to anyone who doesn't line their coffers. Make the call but leave a comment at Fred's column today:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/FredThompson/2007/05/17/those_who_cannot_remember_the_past?page=full&comments=true#d6da2d2e-2d48-4cc0-9d5a-c5f86e3146b7

If you can't step up now Fred, don't come knocking later. I won't be home.
colster writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 12:57 PM
S. 1348, Page 714
Taxpayers to provide grants to organizations helping illegals fill out their status applications, including legal assistance and gathering proof of relationships of "eligible family members".
KGK writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 12:57 PM
Go to NumbersUSA
Go to NumbersUSA.com and get free faxes to every Senator who controls this disastrous bill. I have faxed a dozen so far. I am a member of this group and you can join too. This has been an ongoing problem that people are just, just awakening to. Conservatives have been disunited on so many issues that this Bush-Kyl-Reid-Kennedy bill has doomed any unity. Bush has put the Party in this position. The Dems are howing with delight that now they have written the Education Bill and now the Immigration Bill. Oh sure, we Pubs can stay at home but if we do, we get Hil. And Hil it will be. We need 41 Pubs to stop this insanity of amnesty and to ask for border enforcement first, sanctions on employers and more guards on the border. Mon. is the deadline and so we must all unite and go for broke instead of debating whether Hunter and Paul can win the nomination. Please. This is real and earnest. Get busy.
colster writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 12:49 PM
S 1348, Page 538
Immigration Lawyer Support Clause: Illegals charged with making false statements on a status application qualify to receive funds for legal fees from the Federal Legal Services Corporation.
Sammy writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 12:45 PM
Compromising Your Soul
Joe, how many American voters even know Duncan Hunter? How can you say that he has no chance against Clinton, Obama, or Edwards when he is little known to the public at large. And please don't tell me that his lack of name recognition is the reason he has no chance because the same could easily have been said of Slick Willie and Carter at this stage of the game.

If you like Duncan Hunter then support him! You're making compromises before you have to make compromises. Tancredo is my guy, but were Duncan Hunter to catch fire I'd catch the Hunter train as fast as I could. As a conservative, I just couldn't live with myself knowing that I compromised my positions with a candidate like McCain -- especially at a stage of the game before it is even necessary. Go with your heart dude!
colster writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 12:42 PM
S 1348, Page 636
Illegals can qualify for Federal grants and loans for higher education.
colster writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 12:39 PM
S. 1348, Page 620
Illegals may qualify for in state tuition for higher education.
colster writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 12:32 PM
S. 1348, Page 641
Taxpayers will be paying for aliens to take classes to meet the English language requirements.
Harold C. Hutchison writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 12:31 PM
This is the price of failure...
Conservatives took an absolutist position in 2006. There was the inherent promise that by doing so, it would be a component in achieving victory in the midterms last year. They went so far as to try to primary out a very conservative Republican in Utah - and lost by a 56-44 margin.

Yet the absolutists persisted, and convinced the House Republicans to not even name conferees. Then the midterms came - and the GOP lost Congress. Worse, some of these same hardliners lost, too. J.D. Hayworth's now doing a talk show, I hear...

In order to keep the GOP on a ahrd-line position, hard-liners on immigration needed to make up for the losses that such a position would entail among the business community, farmers, moderates, independents, and Hispanic voters. They failed to deliver.

Now, the GOP is going to rebuild what bridges it can with the business community, farmers, moderates, independents, and Hispanics. It's coming out of what conservatives wanted. This is the price of failure to deliver at the polls.
jamil writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 12:18 PM
the most important bill of our lifetime
Open position: Presidential candidate

Qualifications: STOP AMNESTY

Benefits: 75% of votes in this country

Starting date: TODAY


Virginia Patriot writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 12:16 PM
Won't Get Fooled Again
Who actually believes the President has any intention of building a fence? How will we enforce new laws when we won't enforce current laws? Will the people breaking current law comply with any new law?
Who actually believes, that when George W. Bush delivers on his promises to citizens of other countries illegally in our country, that they will vote Republican? Another amnesty will result in Democrat majorities for decades. How stupid do you have to be to import voters for the opposition at the same time you alienate your own voters? If the GOP surrenders our sovereignty and abandons the rule of law, they may find in November 2008, that they still have their big money/cheap labor donors, but they do not have voters. GOP-RIP
james23 writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 12:11 PM
the death warrant for GOP in 08,
othat's what this bill is. NO matter how strong our candidates may be on other issues, the GOP will be abandoned by many of its strongest supporters in 08 if this bill isn't stopped.

The only hope for any GOP candidate in 08 is that they come out strong and lead the fight AGAINST Bush and Kennedy and the Senate GOP. Any GOP Senator, and any GOP Pres. candidate, who sits back passively and watches this perversion get signed into law should start looking for a new job.
manfred writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 12:08 PM
Duncan Hunter?
He is a fiend -- he brags about building a wall in San Diego. How Reaganesque! Reagan says "tear down that wall" -- now, Hunter et al want to build one.
Rather than complain about "illegals" -- might I, in passing, point out that these are people? Human beings? Hungry, poor, seeking a better life? Funny how the culture of life ends at birth -- why not ask ourselves what creates the conditions that lead to this mass migration northward in the Americas? Consider, for example, how NAFTA opens borders for GOODS and for CORPORATIONS but not for LABOR. So, we send our factories to other countries in order to drive down wages, but we refuse to allow labor to move to seek higher wages. In fact, American workers should WELCOME mass immigration -- it will shrink the labor pool in, say, Mexico, which will force those American factories to raise wages, and it will decrease the wage gap that leads to the exporting of American jobs. It is funny how free market supporters don't believe in the free market of labor.
jamil writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 12:04 PM
Becoming Illegal
Becoming Illegal (From a Maryland resident to his senator)

The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes Senate Office Building 309 Hart, Washington DC, 20510

Dear Senator Sarbanes,

As a native Marylander and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effor t to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.

My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.

Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I 'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.

Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year. Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as "in-state" tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.

Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and making those

burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I still have college age children driving my car.

If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative.

Thank you for your assistance.

Your Loyal Constituent,

Pete McGlaughlin

Get your Forms (NOW)!! Call your Internal Revenue Service 1-800-289-1040. Please pass this onto your friends so they can save on this great
ChairmanMao writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 11:43 AM
Minorities are 58% of the population
One thing left to do: learn to speak Spanish
Pasadena Phil writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 11:40 AM
Make the phone call and then
Go to Fred Thompson's latest article:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/FredThompson/2007/05/17/those_who_cannot_remember_the_past?page=full&comments=true

Read my comment and jump in. This is Fred's moment to step up to the plate, if he can't step up now, then when and why? We don't need our presidential candidates to claim they were only bystanders when they could have closed the barn doors BEFORE the horses escaped.
ShiningCity writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 11:38 AM
GERALDO
needs to go and find people on the waiting list for citizenship and do a great big profile on them as he did with illegals facing deportation.

Let's ask law abiders about their perspective on criminals getting the goods.

Not that it would matter.

Ex-tex writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 11:33 AM
Conservative??! PROVE IT!
STOP THIS RINO ILLEGAL AMMNESTY BILL!
Virginia Patriot writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 11:25 AM
joe
Someone who makes up words and can't string two coherent sentences together could beat any of the Dems. Bush can't run again (thank God). Give Americans a chance to vote for someone who WILL secure the border and enforce the laws and watch turnout soar. It would be a landslide of Reagan proportions.
Virginia Patriot writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 11:21 AM
Forget the Senate
They sold us out last year and they will do it again this year. The place to stop this insanity is in the House. Everyone needs to start calling their Reps. and not stop until this is dead. November 2006 is going to look like the good old days for the GOP Senators come November 2008. I have already written to Sen. Warner numerous times letting him know I would not be voting for him again, which I had done since 1978.
Joe writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 11:19 AM
Virginia Patriot
I have to say I am impressed with Hunter. He is a good man. I think he would be a good president. Unfortunately I am sure he could not beat Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. If he could I would consider supporting your position.

Buck writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 11:12 AM
Amazing, the Suptidity of Politicians
The Democrats are chanting 11/7 was all about Iraq.
The Republicans are acting like they agree.

NOBODY in politics seems to understand the American people want these illegal invaders OUT of here and the border secured.
Virginia Patriot writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 11:05 AM
HUNTER 2008

Conservatives can nominate a conservative. All it takes is not acting like sheep and getting herded into nominating a northeast liberal. 49% will never vote for Hillary, only 60% voted last time. Turnout was the difference. Give Americans a chance to vote for somone who will secure the border and watch turnout soar. Americans want their government to fulfill its most basic responsibility.

The primary responsibility of the U.S. government is to protect the territorial integrity and people of this country. They have completely abdicated this responsibility. Both parties have been complicit in this. We are being told it is not possible to control our borders, enforce our laws, and thereby control our destiny as a nation. Hogwash. We are being sold out by corporations intent on importing workers for jobs that can't be exported with the taxpayers paying the true costs, financial and human. If we act like sheep and don't stop the inundation across our borders, we will lose our country without a bleat.

http://www.gohunter08.com
Joe writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 11:01 AM
NRO calls it Bush-Kennedy
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTc0MzlkMzI5NjQxNTMwNDQ2NWFjMDlhNGRjOWZmNGI=

Hugh--President Bush is backing this. Go attack him. Go ask him to veto it. Oh wait, the President does not want to do that? But of course, he is President, he should be allowed to do anything he wants.

Wait a second--there is still the Filibuster! Is there no conservative senator willing to derail this by delay?

Hugh could care less about immigration--he is only concerned with hurting John McCain because he believes that helps Mitt Romney (and presumably drives up Hugh's book sales).
Joe writes: Thursday, May, 17, 2007 10:38 AM
This is McCain's fault?
Interesting how Hugh Hewitt is now the champion of border security. Hugh--I don't remember you challenging President Bush on this. . . ever. Any chance to attack John McCain.

Hugh put a paper bag over your mouth and nose and take long deep breaths. You are hyperventilating.
Sign Up to Post Your Comments Sign Up to Post Your Comments
Please take a few seconds to sign up, then you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, create your own blog and more! If you are already registered, click here.
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.
 


Your Blog Postings:
Last updated 5 Minutes 32 Seconds Ago
Last updated 6 Minutes 4 Seconds Ago
Last updated 6 Minutes 45 Seconds Ago
Last updated 7 Minutes 12 Seconds Ago
Last updated 23 Minutes 41 Seconds Ago
 

Archives of our Conservative, Republican, Political Blogs

Blog Search



Townhall Conservative, Republican, Political Blogs Townhall Blogs
Townhall Conservative, Republican, Political Columns Columns
Your Townhall Conservative, Republican, Political Blogs Your Blogs
By Month
 November 2009
 October 2009
 September 2009
 August 2009
 July 2009
 June 2009
 May 2009
 April 2009
 March 2009
 February 2009
 January 2009
 December 2008
 November 2008
 October 2008
 September 2008
 August 2008
 July 2008
 June 2008
By Issue
 A Culture of Life
 Budget & Government
 Campaigns & Elections
 Education
 Energy & Environment
 Faith & Family
 Foreign Affairs
 Health Care
 Immigration
 Jobs & Economy
 Judges & Courts
 Media & Culture
 Property Rights
 Safety & Security
 Science & Technology
 Second Amendment
 Social Security
 Tax Relief
Advertisement

Comments Comments

Munck, you confirmed my
 Re: 'This isn't the Britain we fought for,' say the 'unknown warriors' of WWII
  By Ronna
Ronna
 Re: Will Obama crash the crashers?
  By grace
oh, and btw,
 Re: Here Comes the Judge?
  By Patriotic Liberal
melwhoore at wits end
 Re: Twenty lessons your teenage daughter will learn from the Twilight movies
  By dreadnaught
Hengler wrote his thesis at U of BR
 Re: 'This isn't the Britain we fought for,' say the 'unknown warriors' of WWII
  By grace
'shrieker
 Re: Here Comes the Judge?
  By Patriotic Liberal
Ronna 1:52 PM
 Re: 'This isn't the Britain we fought for,' say the 'unknown warriors' of WWII
  By Bob Munck
NeoConScum
 Re: Shocker: Palin #1
  By Seadog
Jillian
 Re: Only Global Warming Critics Can Save Climategate Scientists
  By Molotov
JAG CA...That Durn Nobel Pissss Prize
 Re: Only Global Warming Critics Can Save Climategate Scientists
  By NeoConScum
MellorSJ2
 Re: Here Comes the Judge?
  By clarityseeker
wack a- doo
 Re: Here Comes the Judge?
  By dreadnaught
LEE WRITES
 Re: Christmas Outlawed
  By David
Warmers is the word... Patches is right
 Re: Only Global Warming Critics Can Save Climategate Scientists
  By JAG CA
Obama admits to being Muslim
 Re: 'This isn't the Britain we fought for,' say the 'unknown warriors' of WWII
  By Ronna
as for the cretin:
 Re: Twenty lessons your teenage daughter will learn from the Twilight movies
  By dreadnaught
StoicPat:Ain't It Typical of MSM-Lapdawg
 Re: Only Global Warming Critics Can Save Climategate Scientists
  By NeoConScum
America & Britain losing their identity
 Re: 'This isn't the Britain we fought for,' say the 'unknown warriors' of WWII
  By Ronna
melwhore still craving my nuts
 Re: Twenty lessons your teenage daughter will learn from the Twilight movies
  By MellorSJ2
Dreadnaught..Seems That You've Attracted
 Re: Twenty lessons your teenage daughter will learn from the Twilight movies
  By NeoConScum

The Latest on Town HallThe Latest on Town Hall


Blog Roll Blog Roll