NO AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS
Contact Your Representatives and RINO Senators
Click Here to Find Your Reps
Toll Free Numbers
(888) 355-3588
(877) 762-8762
Posted on 04/03/2006 9:19:06 AM PDT by rcocean
Okay. Let's not talk about substance--since the pro-immigration forces have in fact been winning that debate easily.
Let's talk about ballot boxes John McCain, lead sponsor of a bill that resembles the Senate Judiciary Committee bill, has a pretty impressive electoral record in Arizona, a competitive state. George W. Bush, a pro-immigration Republican, has won two presidential elections--as did another pro-immigration Republican, Ronald Reagan.
The American people are worried about immigration. In a Pew Survey released last week, 52 percent of Americans saw immigration as a burden, while 41 percent said it strengthened the country; 53 percent support sending illegals home, while 40 percent endorsed a path to citizenship. Given the hoopla about illegal immigration, this division is in fact surprisingly close. In any case, it means GOP senators and congressmen--and presidents--have plenty of room to show leadership and to resist demagoguery. Most Republican officeholders know that the political--and moral--cost of turning the GOP into an anti-immigration, Know Nothing party would be very great. It could easily dash Republican hopes of becoming a long-term governing party. How many Republicans will have the courage to stand up and prevent the yahoos from driving the party off a cliff?
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
He, Fred Barnes, and the other Weekly Standard writers with their elitist name calling will split the party in 2006.
S is for Smug.
Well, first off he just refers to immigration. I find people do that in order to blur the issue. He's not stupid enough not to know the difference.
susie
Go ahead and call Kyl, Sensenbrenner, Pence and others 'yahoos'. I call them patriots. The Pro-illegal repubs are miscalculating badly on this one. I sense the street is on edge and is tilted against by a larger margin than the polls indicate.
Kristol appears to be supporting President Bush's position on this.
Yet more proof that neoconservatism is treason.
Kristol is a big-government globalist who supports Bush whenever Bush promotes big-government globalism. That's all there is to it.
Kristol was and IS an idiot.
Repubs aren't the only ones on edge, so are the blue collar Dems, sizeable number of black Dems, the two groups who know they will be the first ones to feel the brunt of illegal immigrants if they are givened legal status.
Hey Kristol... I got a size 11 heat-seeking cordovan zeroed in on 'yer a$$!
let's see...........................
armstrong williams got, what? $250,000 for his column supporting the bush/kennedy education bill.........................
What do you think kristol charged for this?
"Kristol is a big-government globalist who supports Bush whenever Bush promotes big-government globalism. That's all there is to it."
And, in this case, that means supporting President Bush in this "guest worker" business. Frankly, I do not see how anything that does not include a "guest worker" program is going to ever get through both houses of Congress as a compromise bill.
Enough Republican Reps and Senators will take President Bush's support for "guest workers" as permission to hold that position as well. That will mean that no bill that does not include such provisions can possibly pass and get sent to Bush's desk.
The alternative is for no bill to be passed at all, which simply would preserve the status quo, which is not a desirable outcome.
Attacking Bill Kristol for supporting President Bush's position is a waste of time. It's clear that a hard-line anti-illegal immigration bill will never reach Bush's desk.
Kristol's attitude is typical of the arrogant inside-the-beltway crowd. He doesn't have a clue, and couldn't care less what the Republican base is thinking. When the GOP loses it's majority in Congress this year because of this issue, he'll be totally perplexed as to why it happened.
Actually, the alternative is a guest worker program that does not allow people here illegally to stay here and just change their status. If we need guest workers, make them apply from the country where they legall reside. All this is is an amnesty, which has been done before, and we see the results today.
susie
Or, he'll blame us....
susie
"Um. No thanks. I want NO prisoners touching my food."
Then buy the produce that comes from Mexico, a third of it already comes from there.
I know one Central Valley rancherl, Frank Church, that moved 100k acres of his produce to Mexico when Chavez forced the union on California farmers.
Merriam Webster dictionary.Yahoo,def:a boorish,crass,or stupid person.So Kristol thinks anyone who is tough on illegal immigration is a "yahoo"?Correction William,we are realists,we care about our country and we don't like what elitist's such as yourself are doing to undermine the will of the majority.
"Actually, the alternative is a guest worker program that does not allow people here illegally to stay here and just change their status. If we need guest workers, make them apply from the country where they legall reside. All this is is an amnesty, which has been done before, and we see the results today.
"
I don't disagree. However, I haven't yet seen any logistical explanation of how we're going to eject 11-12 million people. In fact, I cannot even imagine any successful logistical operation that could do that.
Even here in Minnesota, I can look around and see lots of illegal aliens, mostly hispanic, who are working in just about every business around me. In some cases, they make up the majority of the employees.
How do we gather them up and deport them, while maintaining those businesses in operation. And I'm not talking about mom&pop stores, either. I'm talking about major employers in the area.
So, if someone has a logistical approach to the expulsion of current illegals, I'll be overjoyed to read about it. Until then, I don't think we need any more unenforceable laws on the books regarding immigration. We have plenty of those already.
"I don't disagree. However, I haven't yet seen any logistical explanation of how we're going to eject 11-12 million people. In fact, I cannot even imagine any successful logistical operation that could do that. "
Well, if you think that will be tough, just how do you think this nightmare of a proposal that came out of the Senate Judiciary Committee will be administered? The short answer is that it can't be and will not be. The Senate bill is just a cover for amnesty.
Kristol floated this idea on Fox News Sunday yesterday. Kristol basically both in this piece and on FNS illustrated absurdity by being absurd.
If yahoos favor enforcing existing immigration laws:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sup_01_8_10_12.html
then I'm a yahoo.
I find that: 1.) the eventual winners in any argument are usually called names; and,
2.) Kristol sounds like Hillary on `gun control": "Why, we need more, and better laws . . ."
This is truly an idiotic statement. Without conservatives like Barnes and Kristol, you paleos would be stuck with the likes of Pat Buchanan and a permanent electoral minority.
I thought you had a better imagination than that! First, you announce that the guest worker program will require that they not be in this country illegally when they apply, give a date that they must be out, and if they are caught illegally in the US after that time, they will be forever banned from a guest worker program.
Second, employer sanctions for hiring illegals (and I mean tough sanctions that make it not worth it). I'm not sure you would have to do much else, but there are other things you could do.
Many if not most would self deport when they couldn't work, and they had the incentive of likely getting to come back legally if they went thru the proper process.
susie
Honestly, I believe this coalition between the give me another excuse to rob the citizenry Democrats (their money is my power) and the welfare to business Republicans will be a difficult force to beat in Congress. We the people can toss them out on their law-breaking bums next election, but until then.. What the Republican side of this should remember is that this splits their party and will weaken them overall.
What I also want to know how can I trust a politician to defend the Constitution when he/she favors allowing some to break our laws.
http://levin.nationalreview.com/
Ike'N'Me
I am increasingly amazed at the open-borders crowd. Their constant resort to name-calling and platitudes underscores the arrogance of these elites. This is typical:
Let me make this as simple as I can. Vicente Fox announced the other day that he had no intention of preventing his citizens from coming to the United States, i.e., he would continue to de-populate his country of poor people in violation of U.S. immigration law. Whatever happened to the rule of law? The open-borders crowd doesn't much care when it comes to illegal immigration. They oppose punishing employers who break the law (remember, Simpson-Mazzoli granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants in exchange for, among other things, prosecuting employers who hire illegal immigrants in the future); they oppose extending the wall on our southern border to help prevent the continuing mass influx of illegal immigrants (in a perverse twist of logic, it reminds them of the Berlin Wall, which prevented people from leaving that city); and they oppose deportation. So, the obvious question is: how would the open-borders crowd enforce a new law? They have no answer.
As for deportation, I suppose Dwight Eisenhower was a nativist, a know-nothing, a racist, as he ordered the deportation of over one million illegal immigrants. While I agree that such an approach today would be unworkable, creating disincentives for people to break our laws (both employers and illegal immigrants) would surely begin to reduce the numbers.
The open-borders crowd isn't compassionate, either. The Mexican government is corrupt. The Mexican economy is largely state-managed. As long as the open-borders crowd wins the day, the Mexican government and economy will continue to produce poverty and hardship there. Nor is their approach fair to foreigners who are trying to come to our country legally or federal and state taxpayers who are subsidizing businesses who seek cheap labor (somebody's paying for more resources for education, health care, law enforcement, and so forth; we used to call this kind of redistribution of wealth or cost-burdens, socialism). If more immigrant labor is desired, then Congress and the president can raise the legal limits. But until they stem the flow of illegal immigrants, that's not likely.
And perhaps the biggest insult in this entire debate is the claim by these elites that Americans won't do low-end jobs, such as entry-level jobs. Of course, illegal immigrants drive down the cost of labor. Businesses and employees who play by the rules are at a severe disadvantage as they try to comply with various regulations imposed on them by government (a minimum wage, workers compensation, Medicare, Social Security, unemployment, and other taxes and deductions). Let me suggest that the same Americans who are willing to risk their lives to liberate people in Afghanistan and Iraq, who have liberated tens of millions of people all over the world and throughout our history, are more than willing and able to fill jobs the elites find objectionable, if they are free to compete for them in a lawful context. Illegal immigration undermines the employer-employee relationship and the ability to compete by those who are law-abiding. Rather than acknowledge this, the open-borders crowd prefers to disparage the American work ethic.
As for the politics, there is a wide gap between the views of the open-borders crowd and most Americans. The open-borders crowd goes so far as to contend that those Republican politicians who even dare to speak out against this illegal behavior are damaging the chances of the GOP to become or remain a majority party. This implies, of course, that Latinos as a group are either law-breakers or support law-breaking. The fact is that American citizens and legal immigrants who seek entry-level or unskilled jobs are hurt most by those who go outside the legal job market for labor. Hence, 25-years ago the civil-rights and union movements opposed illegal immigration. Rather than a liability, Republicans have an opportunity to make in-roads to these folks (many of whom are minorities, including Latinos) as they experience directly the harmful effects of the illegal job market and corporate welfare. However, that message may well become confused because of the cheap rhetoric of Republican elites who grab attention by using labels like “nativists” and “know-nothings” to describe falsely those who have the integrity to stand for the rule of law and honest business practices. It is they who are playing the race card and creating animosity as they’ve been cowed into believing that the only way to win votes in the Latino community is to advocate law breaking.
04/02 12:23 PM
Kristol says:
KRISTOL: I'm a liberal on immigration. I mean, I think the Bush approach is right. I think the Senate Judiciary Committee approach is right. If Congressman King thinks that it's a good idea to go around talking about branding people with the letter A for amnesty, if you (inaudible) see how, to use Brit's word, repellent that is of an image, you know, for, it's unbelievable. And the Republican Party will go down the tubes if it takes that position.
I disagree with Mara that it's threading the needle. Bush needs to step up and repudiate those House Republicans and their rhetoric, and make much more of a public case for his comprehensive immigration reform bill. Look, I'm not cavalier about illegal immigrants. I know that we need to have a serious debate about it. What damage have they done that's so great in 20 years? The anti-immigration forces said 20 years ago, there was an amnesty, which there sort of was, the Simpson- Mazzoli bill, which was pushed by the anti-immigration people, that Ronald Reagan signed.
What's happened that's so terrible in the last 20 years? Is the crime rate up in the United States in the last 20 years? Is unemployment up in the United States in the last 20 years?
(CROSSTALK)
KRISTOL: And they've been contributing to the U.S. economy and not damaging U.S. society. There have been marches with Mexican flags, which conservative talk radio is up in arms about. I mean, are these people serious? Are these people -- what, are they going to be traitors to the U.S.? An awful lot of Mexican Americans, an awful lot of sons and daughters of illegal immigrants are fighting in the U.S. Army.
(CROSSTALK)
KRISTOL: I am pro-immigration, and I am even soft on illegal immigration.
Now why is Kristol a conservative?
Great post and comments by Levin.
He isn't a conservative. Kristol just plays one on TV.
McCain isn't a conservative either. If you wonder why John Kerry offered McCain the Democrat V-P slot, just look at his support for illegal immigration.
Dad was a Trotskyite.
Not that there's anything wrong with that . . . d'oh!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kristol
This whole issue is about welfare, national sovereignty (and assimilation or not) and national security, not about "pro-immigration" or "anti-immigration".
How ignorant America's commentators are!
N is for Neocon.
I'm sorry to say that it isn't "stupidity" but dishonesty.
They (people like Kristol) know its not about "immigration" its about "illegal immigration" and security, etc.
But Kristol can't win by openly saying "I support *Illegal* immigration".
Hence, the dropping of the word "Illegal" and dishonestly pretending the debate is about legal immigration. And the bring up stupid arguments such as "We can't deport 11 million people" when no one has suggested it.
There are plenty of LEGAL immigrants in my neighborhood against ILLEGAL immigration.
The Weekly Standard is becoming more irrelevant with every issue...
"I'm turning paleo, I think I'm turning paleo--I really think so."
And who could ever forget Little Billy echoing liberal loon John Kerry---calling for the ouster of Sec Rumsfeld awhile back? Sure says a lot about Billy's (gag) "conservatism." It did not escape conservatives' notice that Kristol's gleeful public attack on Sec Rumsfield was a carefully constructed attack on Mr Bush, and on conservative thought.
Little Billy's backstabbing GWB and his administration was unconscionable. Such undermining of a sitting president did not exist even in the flawed Clinton administration and certainly not to the degree approaching that visited on the current administration by Kristol, and The Group that purports to be in its corner.
My, my, Billy sure keeps strange company, doesn't he? Ever wonder what Rummy did that has Kristol, Kerry and and McCain all up in arms and after his head??? Seems ol' Lieberman was angling to replace Rummy as Defense Secretary, and was being aided and abetted by Bill Kristol who, like John Kerry and McCain, was demanding the ouster of Rummy. "....if he really wants to torment the Democrats--and advance the war effort--he could make Joe Lieberman Secretary of Defense....." Billy famously said.
Then again, it's always difficult to determine what motivation drives Billy's type of elliptical, convoluted thinking.......Although Billy's Mummy and Daddy might have threatened to take away the magazine if Little Billy didn't Hurry Up and Do Something.
BTW, it's still unclear just how many countries Kristol and the empire boys----those old-fashioned British imperialists----do not want the US to invade and occupy. Then again, probably they haven't told Pres Bush yet, either (/sarc).
I believe you miss the point I made in #35.
True, the press never says illegal alien and calls them migrants, but we all know that.
That is not the point I made in #35. I stated that the real concern over the illegal alien invasion is about (1) welfare--the cost to taxpayers to support these illegals, (2) national sovereignty (and assimilation or not)--the fact they do not give a hoot about being American, but believe this is their land, and (3 national security--15% of the illegals are not from Mexico.
Kristol only talked about "pro and ant-immigration" and party politics. At the REAL grassroot level, Americans are concerned more about the three concerns I stated (not party politics), and Kristol completely ignored those.
"A neoconservative is just a liberal who got mugged by reality. A neoliberal is a liberal who got mugged by reality but has not pressed charges."
A liberal who got mugged by reality is still a liberal.
Post #43 was meant for you--I mistakenly pinged myself. Would appreciate your comments.
The Democrats won't be any better on Immigration; some have went as far as offering welfare benifets and automatic citizenship for any illegal.
The Democrats won't be any better on Immigration; some have went as far as offering welfare benifets and automatic citizenship for any illegal.
NO AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS
Contact Your Representatives and RINO Senators
Click Here to Find Your Reps
Toll Free Numbers
(888) 355-3588
(877) 762-8762
Ooo. Perhaps you'll tell us what "neoconservatism" is, then?
With the denial of work because they do not have valid IDs and the denial of many public services, most of the people will leave without any law enforcement people lifting a finger.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.