Sunday, January 06, 2008
|
|
Shades Of Marley's Ghost: John McCain And Amnesty
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
10:03 AM
|
John McCain's crippled presidential candidacy is attempting a comeback in New Hampshire, a comeback built on amnesia --the hope that GOP voters won't recall the Virginia Beach explosion against evangelicals in 2000, the votes against President Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, the McCain-Feingold assault on free speech, the Gang of 14 undoing of the mandate to end judicial filibusters delivered by the Senate elections of 2004, and most especially the two attempts co-authored by Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy to overhaul the immigration laws of the United States and extend to the 12 to 20 million illegals living in the U.S. the opportunity to stay here forever.
On Meet The Press this morning, John McCain was again denying that McCain-Kennedy was an amnesty bill, and as soon as Russert took the conversation there, McCain had lost the hour and the momentum again. McCain's indifference to public opinion and his colleagues on this issue (the famous f-bomb he threw at John Cornyn over the Texas senator's demand for a tougher approach) and his eagerness to treat with Teddy K. are chains around political future. Recall Marley's ghost in Dickens' Christmas Carol. Marley had been Scrooge's partner:
Seven years prior to the main events of the novel, Marley contracted an unspecified illness and died on Christmas Eve. After his death, Marley's spirit was condemned to walk the Earth for all eternity. As punishment for his shutting out of his fellow man, Marley's ghost could observe, but not interact with, living beings. As an added burden, his spirit was forced to drag around a heavy chain. This chain, made up partly of money boxes, was constructed by Marley's own greed and selfishness.
Now McCain is a political Marley, and every time he rejects the charge of amnesty, he adds another link to his chain. Voters won't trust his conversion on the issue unless and until he quite forthrightly acknowledges what he was attempting to jam down the public's throats the past two years. It isn't that he has flip-flopped on the issue of the Z-Visa. It is that voters don't believe he has flipped at all.
Compounding his problem --another link in the long, long chain he carries-- is one forged yesterday when he flat out misstated his record. Ramesh Ponnuru picked it up at National Review's The Corner:
The Immigration Debate in NH [Ramesh Ponnuru]
Romney, aided by Tom Tancredo and Joe Arpaio, is predictably going after McCain on immigration. Romney will be helped by the fact that today McCain said something that not even his friends in the press can defend. He said, at that Peterborogh town meeting, that he had never supported, and would never support, giving any government benefits to "someone who came to this country illegally." That is provably false. But maybe it won't help Romney, if McCain's friends in the press just ignore it.
It is false, and MSM may ignore it, but voters in New Hampshire and beyond won't because of new media.
John McCain voted to extend social security benefits to illegal aliens for years they had worked illegally in the U.S.
That's a fact. A hard, cold fact. Any unless and until John McCain admits he did so and that he was wrong to do so, it will dog him this week and the weeks beyond if he indeed has weeks beyond.
Here is John McCain's debate with Nevada Republican John Ensign over whether illegals allowed to stay in the country would collect the social security benefits for taxes withheld while they were in the country illegally. Read the whole thing, carefully. It is the real John McCain on immigration, the one who didn't care what his party or the public thought about the issue.
Note this exchange in particular:
MR. ENSIGN: Is he aware that it is a felony to use someone’s SocialSecurity number?
Mr. MCCAIN. I am aware of that.
Mr. ENSIGN. Under this legislation, we forgive that felony. We grant amnesty for that felony.
Mr. MCCAIN. Under this legislation, we allow the illegal immigrants a path to citizenship which, if they are convicted of felonies or misdemeanors, according to an amendment, then they would be ineligible to embark on that path to earn citizenship.
Mr. ENSIGN. Right. But, Mr. President, in Sections 601 and 614 of the legislation, it actually ensures that aliens who receive legal status cannot be prosecuted for document fraud, including the false use of Social Security numbers. Is the Senator aware of that?
So Senator Ensign is among those characterizing the McCain-Kennedy bill as an amnesty and doing so in the context of the debate over whether or not to allow illegal aliens to collect social security benefits for taxes paid while they worked in the country illegally.
John McCain argued in the debate last night, and again with Tim Russert this morning, that his plan wasn't amnesty because illegals had to pay a fine of $5,000.
This argument is wholly unpersuasive for two reasons.
First, if by paying a sum of $5,000 you earn a future benefit stream from Social Security, that's not a fine. It's an annuity.
Second, would John McCain argue it wasn't an amnesty if the "fine" was $1? $500? $2,000?
Most Americans looked at the $5,000 number and laughed, realizing that many thousands of employers would gladly pay that amount in a bonus to keep their worker, or that family and friends would cobble together the funds. It wasn't a penalty. It was camouflage.
Some spin from last night's decate is that Romney got pummeled, and indeed he took shot after shot but he parried almost all of them and stood his ground. None of his supporters would switched their votes last night, and some undecideds had to have liked the command of the issues and the poise under fire.
John McCain positively lost support last night and again this morning on Meet The Press beacuse he's back attempting to defend the indefensible in the eyes of the GOP base: McCain-Kennedy. In doing so John McCain is revealed as the old John McCain, impervious to criticism, indifferent to facts, angry at the impertinence of any who would question his judgment.
And unrepentant about McCain-Kennedy. And unelectable as a result.
UPDATE: The front-page Manchester Union Leader article on the debate is all about the immigration clash. Add another link in the McCain chain. Key graphs:
On immigration
Questioned about an issue that he had admitted hurt him politically earlier in the campaign, McCain said he has not changed his basic beliefs on illegal immigration -- comments that drew fire from Romney.
"The fact is, the American people have lost trust in government, and we have to secure the border," the Arizona senator said, adding he continues to believe in a "fool-proof" temporary worker program.
"These are God's children," said McCain, insisting that he does not favor amnesty. "We have to address this issue as humanely and compassionately as possible but we have to protect our national security interests."
Romney said, "If you have 12 million people here illegally," and they are allowed to remain, "in fact, you have amnesty."
|
|
|
Mitt ever get those illegal aliens out of his front yard? If you can't clean up your own front yard, how can you clean up the country? |
|
Mitt at the debate, to McCain:
“I don’t describe your plan as amnesty in my ad,” Romney answered. “I don’t call it amnesty.”
From Rich Lowery at National Review:
'Indeed, after the debate, McCain aides produced a Romney mailing which said “John McCain: Supports Amnesty.” An e-mail from the Romney campaign earlier in the day referred to McCain’s “amnesty plan.” And a new Romney TV ad featured Romney supporters saying McCain “supported amnesty for illegal immigrants” and “wrote the amnesty bill.” In light of that, it is hard to see how Romney was being straight when he said he didn’t “describe [McCain’s] plan as amnesty.” After the debate, Romney’s spokesman, Kevin Madden, choosing his words carefully, said McCain favored “an amnesty-like approach.”'
Mitt says one thing, then another. But we knew that, didn't we? |
|
it just doesn't work... you've been tuned out, they only thing going is you have a forum and can be Cheerleader-In-Chief for Romney.
Grades from Time Magazine from last night:'
John McCain: A-
Rudy Giuliani: B+
Fred Thompson: B-
Mike Huckabee: B-
Ron Paul: C+
Mitt Romney: C+
Cherry picking anything to make you right and ignoring the overwhelming volumes of things that make you look wrong is sad because you are a good guy who up till this election was well received. |
|
Romney said, "If you have 12 million people here illegally," and they are allowed to remain, "in fact, you have amnesty."
Oh, and how does Mitt propose to deport 12 million people? Buses, riot squads,forced marches?
Details, please, Mitt. How did Mitt get rid of the aliens in Mass when he was governor? Heck, he could not even get rid of the ones raking his lawn. |
|
On his show from Friday, he commented that hosts taking positions with candidates is, and I'm paraphrasing here, a "tragic mistake", referring to one's career...
Hugh, you've sold out, and turning people off...
The more I read your rants, the closer I look at other candidates... |
|
I don't think Hugh gives a darn about the immigration issue, anynore than Romney does. They're using it to try and rip McCain, and it's obvious to just about everyone. Hugh's dislike for McCain has more to do with the gang of 14 issue, and again that's not because McCain stopped judges from being confirmed, but because McCain wrested control from the establishment leaders of the GOP, whom Hugh is allied with. But nobody really cares about that issue, which is why this post was all about immigration.
The truth is, most Republican voters disagree with McCain's view on immigration. But they also know that McCain is the most honest and forthright of all of the candidates, and that he is the best national security candidate out there, an issue which trumps immigration. That's why they will vote for him. McCain will be the nominee. |
|
The gang-up on Romney was a long time coming, Hugh. It's laughable that he lectures about personal attacks during the debate while his multi-million dollar media machine cranks out nasty attack after nasty attack.
The legitimate candidates served notice last night that they simply don't like Mitt Romney and in doing so, let America know that they shouldn't either. |
|
David Broder this morning:
'A second Romney loss would effectively end the former Massachusetts governor's candidacy -- a victim of a campaign that lost its credibility along with its ideological definition.'
No credibility?
No definition?
The Ghost of Mitt Romney, forever doomed to try to get his story straight. I can hear the clanking of the chains already.
Merry Christmas, everyone!
|
|
|
"remember Reagan was the populist candidate in 1980 and John Connolly was the establishment candidate." |
|
Voters have already forgotten that atrocious bill McCain co-sponsored this summer. I'd like to think that the GOP isn't so short-sighted that they'd make a mistake like nominating this man, but with Huckabee's win in Iowa, I've grown quite depressed in our ability to see the big picture and nominate an electable candidate who has conservative positions.
It's been a sad week for the GOP I think. George Will's current column is depressingly accurate. |
|
Hey, Hugh likes to quote Dick Morris all of a sudden. Here's Morris' from the NYPost this morning:
'McCain will probably win New Hampshire, dooming Mitt Romney. The checkbook candidate from Massachusetts needs to win in next door New Hampshire to stay alive. But he won't. Romney, confident in his ability to raise more money by raising his pen and writing a check, won't drop out. But he'll get drubbed in Michigan if he loses New Hampshire. Losing the first three primaries will knock him out.' |
|
And Hugh is wise to remind everyone of the reasons McCain (once) fell from being one of the top two GOP contenders into Brownback territory for a while.
But that was last June. That's a lifetime ago, in election terms. You can't derail McCain by turning back the clock seven months. What's relevant to today's discussion is WHY McCain was able to bounce back. People just were not and are not satisfied with the other choices. Specifically, McCain has rebounced (and Huck has risen) because people didn't like the choices of Rudy / Mitt / Fred.
And unless that changes, there will be room for McCain (and Huck).
I think that McCain bashers (not being perjorative, I agree he deserves it) are wise to keep focusing on his past statements and how they conflict with his current message.
The problem with that is, McCain claims to have now seen the light and realized that enforcement comes first. Huckabee, Romney, and Giuliani are all in poor position to challenge him on this conversion of convenience, because they're all in the same position of asking us to ignore what they did and said while in office but instead to trust that they have NOW learned their lesson on illegal immigration. But that's the (purported) McCain position, too. |
|
Stephen Hayes from the Weekly Standard:
'McCain did not return the love. He dinged Romney with several very effective one-liners, including a couple in which the cutaway shots had Romney looking nonplussed. Among them: On Romney's claims that McCain supported Social Security benefits for illegal immigrants: "You can spend your whole fortune on those attack ads, my friend, but it still won't be true." On Romney's claims that he is the candidate of change, McCain took a shot at his flip-flops: "We disagree on many issues but I agree that you are the candidate of change." And on Romney's claim that he was misquoted in an AP story: "When you change your positions as often as you do, you will get misquoted from time to time." He did these things with a smile on his face, which kept him from appearing nasty.
Romney struggled.' |
|
Gotta love these drive-by anti-Romney lefties quoting Broder and TIME magazine as if they have juice in the GOP base.
PS - I'll never uderstand the adoration of McCain by my fellow NH conservatives. He is mean-spirited, old, cranky, and totally inarticulate.
PSS
McCain/Feingold Free Speech
McCain/Kennedy Amnesty
Gang of 14 Judicial Hijacking
McCain/Kennedy No to Bush Tax Cuts
|
|
MikeS As little as a year ago, Hugh cautioned callers on his radio show about being too strident on the immigration issue, he thought it would hurt California Republicans. Hugh is a late convert to the immigration issue, you are correct, it is just to attack McCain.
Just like with his master Mitt.
|
|
John McCain is claiming to be able to change Washington. He has been there for 27 or so years and Washington has changed. It has become more intrusive and larger. What has he done for the past 27 years? Conservative judges? Not with the gang of 14. Maintain the military, the real reason for the Federal government? Not even after the Republicans gained control of both the Senate and the House.
If Senator McCain is the nominee, I will vote for the Democratic candidate because at least with a Democrat President, we may be able to regain the legislature as we did in 1994. With a "friend" like McCain in the White House, who needs enemies. |
|
While conservatives fight over illegal immigration and which candidate said what when, the Democrats have three leading candidates each of whom could be catastrophic to the country, most especially relative to immigration. There is no debate as to what all three Democratic candidates support relative to immigration which is not only amnesty but more rights, privileges and government aid than legal American citizens. The joke is each of them believe that is what the American people want.
"We the people" allowed our government to go off on this road when we didn't loudly demand our laws to be enforced and we somehow began to believe that arbitrary and capricious enforcement was a good thing. |
|
Ed Meese has the definitive word on why the failed McCain-Kennedy bill was INDEED AMNESTY!
"Note that this path to citizenship was not automatic. Indeed, the legislation stipulated several conditions: immigrants had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible. Sound familiar? These are pretty much the same provisions included in the new Senate proposal and cited by its supporters as proof that they have eschewed amnesty in favor of earned citizenship.
The difference is that President Reagan called this what it was: amnesty. Indeed, look up the term "amnesty" in Black's Law Dictionary, and you'll find it says, "the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for undocumented aliens already in the country."
Like the amnesty bill of 1986, the current Senate proposal would place those who have resided illegally in the United States on a path to citizenship, provided they meet a similar set of conditions and pay a fine and back taxes. The illegal immigrant does not go to the back of the line but gets immediate legalized status, while law-abiding applicants wait in their home countries for years to even get here. And that's the line that counts. In the end, slight differences in process do not change the overriding fact that the 1986 law and today's bill are both amnesties."
|
|
If you read the chattering class you would think the GOP is rushing to impale itself on the immigration issue. This kind of debate may play well with the older generation of GOP but hardly appeals to the new independents and neo conservatives. Romney's calculated play on the issue to beat McCain in NH gives the impression of demonizing hardworking immigrants for political gain and only strengthens Obama's appeal. If Romney somehow pulls out NH he wins a short term Pyrrhic victory.
This only reinforces the feeling of political opportunism lingering over the Romney enterprise. |
|
|
Would you have used WATERBOARDING if it could have stopped 9/11 YES or NO? |
|
Friday's Ras poll had McCain over Mitt, 31-26. This morning's poll (new results were from post-Iowa survey) show Mitt closing the gap, with McCain only up 32-30.
It could just be a glitch. If you look at the other candidates, it appears that Mitt picked up the support that Ron Paul lost! And McCain didn't lose any support,; he was up a tick himself. But at least McCain's not pulling even further away like Obama is.
The Tuesday morning poll will reflect the results of this weekend's debates (and WY's convention).
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/ele ction_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_hampshire/electi on_2008_new_hampshire_republican_primary
The good news for Mitt is that Huck doesn't seem to be getting an IA bounce in NH (not surprising, as NH often sees its role to be repudiating IA).
The dark side of that for Huck doubters is that the role of SC has been described as, "New Hampshire has traditionally screwed things up, and then South Carolina comes along and fixes them..." Huckabee is running very strongly in SC. |
|
|
McCain never met an illegal he didn't like. If you support McCain then you support the continued invasion of the 3rd World into this country. One more amnesty and there will definitely never be the political will to stop the continued flow as more and more of the 3rd world gains voting rights and the politicans pander to this growing constituency. An amnesty will mean 100 million new "Americans" with few job skills, little education, limited English comprehension in little more than a generation. |
|
At least now we know why Mitt calls John McCain's plan amnesty, because he doesn't watch his own ads. On "This Week" he just stated that he hadn't seen two of his own ads.
"I am Mitt Romney and somebody in my campaign approved this untrue ad but its not me"
|
|
richard_223 - So you support McCain-Kennedy. Your just a mean spirited Romney basher - guess you get that from McCain.
|
|
I'm not a huge fan of Mitt, but I would be crazy to vote for McCain. You might as well be voting for Ted Kennedy.
I know he would be good on National Security, but he would destroy the country internally.
I will NEVER vote for McCain. If you are considering it, you need to read A LOT about McCain...about immigration...about campaign finance reform...about his aversion to tax cuts.
Honestly, I like Fred Thompson, even though he hasn't openly endorsed the FairTax, which has helped Huckabee's campaign.
|
|
McCain's answer. "That's the wrong question. The real question is ..." Or, "Who would you waterboard? You can't just go around waterboarding everyone you believe might know something." Then we would get the talking points on the evils of waterboarding.
These are politicians, for Pete's sake. They dodge questions the don't like. |
|
|
We need a President that can negotiate and bring leaders and Countries together. After watching last nights debate I came to the conclusion that John McCain dislikes anyone that disagrees with him. He showed a wicked mean spiritness about him and there is no way I could vote for him based on his snide remarks and disrepect to other Republican hopefuls. I also witnessed Huckabee as being vindictive too. I am looking for a President that has a proven record of solving problems and has the ability to realistically fight violent Jihads through bringing moderate Islams together to repell the teachings of Jihads. John McCain says that his experience in Washington makes him the most qualified. Well I live in the State of Arizona and believe me he has not done anything to help with illegal immigration in his own home state. I admire his dedication to America during Viet Nam but that is where my admiration ends. The man I will vote for will have the skills needed to negotiate and bring both parties and both Washington houses together to bring security and economic prosperity to America. That person is Mitt Romney. |
|
On a number of occasions, Huckabee failed to report cash payments he made to himself. For example, according to The Associated Press ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15853756/ ), Huckabee received, but failed to report, “$43,150 from his 1994 lieutenant governor's campaign for use of his personal airplane, $14,000 Janet Huckabee received from his 1992 U.S. Senate campaign, and $23,500 from a tax-exempt organization he incorporated with others in 1994, but whose funding source isn't known…”
According to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Huckabee “depleted the governor's office emergency fund in the final weeks of his administration in part to pay for the destruction of computer hard drives in his office.” |
|
|
When this process began months ago I received a flyer from John McCain requesting funds for his candidacy. I donated $500 because I thought his positions had merit. As time progressed, I wondered why McCain did not do well with raising funds. Did others know something I did not? I then attended a fundraiser for Mitt Romney. I listened to him speak, and was impressed that he appeared to be quite genuine. (I have reviewed the flip flops and don't have a problem with his changing positions). I then contributed money to Romney. I have watched all of the debates and have had an uncertain feeling that McCain had a short fuse. Tonight, after watching the debate, it is apparent to me that he has no class and does not only have a short fuse, but would be dangerous dealing with security issues in which he is at the top of the food chain! I thought his performance was "school yard." In addition, it appears that the gang of 4 (McCain, Thompson, Huckabee, Giuliani) are a bit jealous of what Romney can do. Win or lose in New Hampshire, Romney showed the most class tonight in the debate. If McCain or Huckabee wins, I think you might as well not spend any more money, cancel the elections, and give the reigns to the Democrats! We had better select a classier candidate to run against the Democrats than what we saw with the GANG of 4. |
|
|
when McCain wins this nomination? Shill for Obama? Join the Hillary team? You've just missed the boat so badly on this great American, Hugh. |
|
Mitt is not calling for the deportation of the 12-20 million illegals here. He says that they have to get on line and get legal. That is what McCain is saying too. Romney admitted today on Fox that McCain wants those who committed crimes here to be deported (I assume Romney wants that too). But until I hear Mitt say he wants to deport them all, I just do not buy that he is any different than McCain is on illegal aliens.
The difference is McCain actually committed to a principal. Romney did not.
Hugh is misrepresenting McCain just like Romney is. |
|
Illegal immigration explosion predicted for 2008
Screaming more loudly about immigration than trade makes no sense. (Note that this latest influx will have NOTHING to do with American demand or need for workers.)
IHT: Mexico abolished its last protective tariffs on basic crops like corn, beans and sugar on Tuesday, under the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. Mexican farmers have complained they won’t be able to compete with U.S. farmers who can sell cheaper products because they receive government subsidies.
Mexico’s Roman Catholic Church has warned that the changes could spark an exodus to the U.S. “It is clear that many farmers will have a difficult time competing in the domestic market, and that could cause a large number of farmers to leave their farms,” the archdiocese said in a statement issued on New Year’s Day.
READ MORE
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/illegal-immigratio n-explosion-predicted-for-2008
|
|
What had McCain aides particularly heated was Romney’s exchange with McCain on the issue of McCain’s immigration proposals and the question of amnesty. “The fact is, it’s not amnesty,” McCain said during the debate. “And for you to describe it as you do in the attack ads, my friend, you can spend your whole fortune on these attack ads, but it still won’t be true.”
“I don’t describe your plan as amnesty in my ad,” Romney answered. “I don’t call it amnesty.”
With that, the issue became not whether McCain’s plan was or was not amnesty but whether Romney had or had not called it amnesty. And jaws dropped at McCain headquarters.
“What got us all going was when Governor Romney said, ‘We never called what you did amnesty,’“ said McCain confidante Sen. Lindsey Graham said. “Look on TV. Look in your mailbox in New Hampshire. John’s been pounded by Governor Romney with that charge. I was just dumbstruck.”
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWRmY2MxMzJhOTc4OTlmMj JjYWY3NWI2YzllZDc0NzQ |
|
Fox News: Romney immigration mailer “not true”
WATCH VIDEO
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/romney-ad
|
|
Joe, It is not necessary to say that you want to "deport them all" to prove that you are against amnesty. Attrition through enforcement is the key to ridding us of the illegal menace. Deportation will still be a necessary measure but to say that we have to deport them all is disingenuous. Vigorously enforce the laws, never issue amnesty, remove the incentives, step up deportations, and the problem largely solves itself. It won't be cheap or easy -- just cheaper and easier than granting amnesty and allowing the problem to continue in perpetuity.
Hey, I'm not totally sold on the genuineness of Romney's immigration proclamations either. Just don't confuse the matter of amnesty and deportation like so many other open borders advocates. |
|
What is truly perplexing is why Romney couldn't have just stated the obvious -- McCain's past and current immigration plans ARE amnesty! Why did he not simply call a spade a spade?
If you never called McCain's plans amnesty then I simply want to know why not -- it's not even debateable that that is what they are. State the obvious Mr. Romney. |
|
McCain will probably win New Hampshire, dooming Mitt Romney. The checkbook candidate from Massachusetts needs to win in next door New Hampshire to stay alive. But he won't. Romney, confident in his ability to raise more money by raising his pen and writing a check, won't drop out. But he'll get drubbed in Michigan if he loses New Hampshire. Losing the first three primaries will knock him out.
http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://ww w.nypost.com/seven/01062008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/ther e_will_be_blood_556055.htm
And Sammy: Mitt Romney is not for deporting all illegals, just the criminals. McCain is not for deporting all illegals, just the criminals. So explain to me how either of them is different on this issue? Mitt is pandering, because he dares not come out and say he is for sending home all illegals, because that is not his position. |
|
Mitt Romney: At first I was going to say, ‘hit and miss,’ but I think his answers were hit and miss. (I thought his answers on health care were the most understandable of the evening.) I think he came out of tonight a little wounded; everybody else in the race smells blood.
I think the dynamics of the evening were tough for him. He must have felt like a piñata – one moment he’s getting whacked by Huckabee, then McCain, then Thompson. Romney never quite got completely thrown off, but I think the assessment in the Corner is accurate, he doesn’t defend himself well enough. He whines about personal attacks, or says candidates shouldn’t talk about others’ views, which is pretty nonsensical.
If you went into tonight hearing he was a flip-flopper, you heard several other candidates say it tonight, and you saw Romney say it was a personal attack… and then move on to policy points. Whoever’s left undecided might conclude, based on the lack of effective refutation, that the charge is accurate.
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODllMzJlMDc4 MjQxNWYzMmU3MjFjY2FkZWU1ZTYzYjk= |
|
First, ALL illegals are criminals. Tax fraud, social security fraud, identity theft, and document fraud are all crimes and ALL illegals of working age have had to commit at least one of them. So essentialy illegals and criminals are one in the same. If interpreted correctly, then Mitt and John should both stand for deportation for ALL of them.
Perhaps I'm just getting soft, but I only want to create the conditions in this country whereby the illegals will return on their own. Unfortunately I suspect McCain ignores the criminal offenses listed above when he talks about deportation.
Again, the key here is amnesty not deportation. Mitt at least says that he won't grant amnesty. We perhaps will see -- at least there's hope. With McCain there is NO hope whatsover. He wants the illegals here and plenty more to follow -- after all who's going to pick the lettuce? Perhaps I'm an optimist but I still hold out hope for Thompson. If it's not him then I could possibly support Romney. After that, I'm done with the GOP. Perhaps Ron Paul in a 3rd party bid. |
|
Oh, I guess that's not BOB Marley's ghost!
Anyway, Hewitt makes a good point- there are strong reasons that conservatives loathe John McCain and it is insane that people are still considering him worth considering for the presidential nomination. |
|
"And Sammy: Mitt Romney is not for deporting all illegals, just the criminals. McCain is not for deporting all illegals, just the criminals. So explain to me how either of them is different on this issue?"
Well, McCain wants to grant illegals the right to legally stay in the US for the rest of their lives, Romney does not.
That would seem to me to be a pretty substantial difference.
It is one thing not to GO AFTER illegal aliens in mass deportation raids.
It is quite another to actually seek to shower huge rewards on them for breaking our immigration laws. That's the McCain position. Which is also Ted Kennedy's position.
|
|
The illegal alien advocates have been pushing this false dichotomy for years:
YOU EITHER HAVE TO SEVERELY PUNISH ILLEGAL ALIENS (with mass deportation), OR YOU HAVE TO HUGELY REWARD THEM (by granting them a path to citizenship as a reward for the fact that they have broken our immigration laws).
As Mark Krikorian has pointed out, there is a middle ground between those two extremes.
ATTRITION.
Romney has not directly advocated attrition. (Thompson has) But if you do not grant amnesty to illegals and you do not pursue mass deportations, but you do enforce employer sanctions and the like, then that is implicitly an attrition policy.
Romney's immigration policies are not totally clear. But McCain's are, and they are absolutely horrific.
|
|
McCain states he finally "understands that securing the border must come first - Little slow there, ain't he?
To everyone who says we cannot deport 12 (20) million illegal aliens, I say why not? Mexico did! |
|
"I don't think Hugh gives a darn about the immigration issue, anynore than Romney does. They're using it to try and rip McCain, and it's obvious to just about everyone. "
Sure, that is correct. And I commend Hewitt for trying to rip McCain, for whatever reason.
The United States would probably not survive the horrific consequences of a John McCain presidency.
Anyone who helps to stop McCain, for whatever reason, deserves praise. |
|
|
|