Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.
Posted on 05/30/2006 8:09:56 AM PDT by kellynla
The war now being waged in Congress over illegal immigration is mostly about which philosophy will prevail in the Republican Party. Will it be the conservative wing that brought the GOP to power after years of wandering in the political wilderness as a minority party, or will it be the moderate-liberal wing that became comfortable in the wilderness?
It is no secret that the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party (named after the late New York governor and vice president Nelson Rockefeller) has joined forces with liberal Democrats and even conservative (in name only) Republicans to weaken the conservative wing of the GOP.
The New York Times' Jim Rutenberg wrote an "analysis" about the titanic struggle between the party's two wings on that newspaper's front page on May 26. In it, Rutenberg ponders, "what strain of conservatism the Republican Party carries into the midterm elections and beyond. Will it be the compassionate brand Mr. Bush considers crucial to the party's future, in this case by signaling support for a provision in the Senate bill that would give most illegal immigrants an opportunity to become legal? Or will it be the more doctrinaire variety embraced by much of Mr. Bush's party in the House, one that shuns anything that smacks of amnesty for illegal immigrants and seeks to criminalize them further?"
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
ping
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.
In addition, Medicaid fraud, welfare fraud!
I think Cal Thomas has got this one pretty much figured out.
Justifying amnesty to "feel-good" about being "tolerant and compassionate" is not the Republican way.
Lefties whave transformed the US government, and all its trappings, into a huge psychotherapy agency designed to mobolize government power---and tax assets---to subsidize and shore-up the self-esteem problems of various hyphenated groups.
Anyone with a chip on their shoulder can claim victimization, persecution, discrmination, and is encouraged to apply for sanctuary on our shores which entitles then to numerous tax-subsidized financial benefits, head-of-the-line citizenship, and various other preference-based gov't programs.....all at our expense.
The arguments to justify the Sentate amnesty bill based on references to past racism and injustices are disingenuous, at best. Even Republicans can't comprehend that the racism and injustice happened in foreign countries. Yet, law-abiding Americans are expected to foot the bills for another country's failures.
In passing the bill that excuses all kinds of criminal activity on our shores, the knee-jerkers are confusing compassion with tolerance of criminality---and are willingly acting as dupes for the amnesty lobby's con game.
Republican should know better.
Nelson Rockefeller's father co-founded the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), whose admitted goal is the replacement of the US Constitution by One World Government.
This disturbing debate could more accurately be described as a struggle between the conservatives (who still want to follow the Constitution) and the OWG types who want to sell out the nation's sovereignty (and that includes Bush, father and son) thru supranational organizations.
The illegal immigration debate is a good example of the two sides' positions.
BTTT
Senate amnesty lets guest workers remain in the US up to five years and to bring family with them. "Family?" It should mean only immediate family (husband, wife, children). The new bill does not exclude immigrants' extended family----uncles, aunts, grandparents, brothers, and so on and so forth, ad infinitum, as nauseaum.
Most egregiously, under prevailing wrong-headed interpretations of US federal law, any child born in the U.S. is a citizen, even if the parents are illegal aliens---so-called anchor babies. They are one of the major reasons the vast numbers of illegal immigrants have been allowed to remain in the country. The law was written to ensure citizenship to former slaves; it was never intended to give instant citizenship to the child of an illegal immigrant. Anchor babies are nothing short of back-door amnesty. The Supreme Court must reinterpret the law before the guests workers start arriving.
Finally, no guest worker, family member or illegal immigrant should be allowed to qualify for any form of public assistance or social welfare---including, but not limited to, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, the Women, Infants and Children program, state/county/local welfare in the form of direct cash payments (living allowances) or housing.
Guests workers must be able to support themselves and their families, and not become wards of the state, mooching off taxpayers. Guests of our country should be comport themselves as good guests, and should pull their own weight.
Excellent post!
Bump!
LOL. At least we know where Rutenberg is coming from. After reading his description of the choices "compassionate" versus "doctrinaire" and giving illegals an "opportunity to become legal" versus "one that shuns anything that smacks of amnesty for illegal immigrants and seeks to criminalize them further," there is no mistaking Rutenberg's preference.
It should also be noted that the Senate Reps voted 32 to 23 AGAINST the bill. The RINOs and the WH are out of step with MOST of the Party on this issue.
Amen!
Dang good article.
Though more eloquent, it raised exactly the same points that I raised in my e-mails to the White House, Bill Frist and both of my Senators. However, I emphasized the point that immigration legislation that lacked real border security, lacked real and enforced employer sanctions, but included any form of amnesty, would cause to look for another political party to support, after having voted for Republicans almost exclusively for over 25 years.
You forgot Neo, Cal.
Too many Republicans seem to care more about the future of their party than the future of the country.
I would say too many care about their own hides, their jobs, than for the country or the party. Fortunately, that is not true of the real conservatives, only those whom Cal is talking about.
That should be the test for all legislation but unfortunately we know it is not. Most legislation is serving a subrosa agenda.
You make excellent points so keep up the good work.
As a liberal once said, " Ya gotta dance with the one that brung ya".
It has gone completely unnoticed that the Constitution is intended to protect the people from the government. The gov't acts like it is the reverse equation.
The citizenry does not exist to serve the government.
The Founders intended to protect the people's rights by limiting the powers of government. Any action which is intended to protect the people's interests from an errant government---as in the immigration dilemma---is in keeping with Constitutional imperatives, and is to be applauded.
That the Constitution is intended to protect the people from the government goes unnoticed..........and untaught. Unfortunately, liberal thought police have indoctrinated generations with Marxist/Socialist agit-prop so that many see the gov't as the solution to problems, and work to grant gov't more and more power over the lives of the citizenry.
Hear that Mr. President and Karl?
Congress should not behave like some ancient pope, handing out papal bulls for absolution of certain sins in exchange for contributions to the church. In the case of illegal immigrants, moderate-liberal Republicans want to "absolve" illegals, hoping for electoral contributions to their party. It won't work, because even if all illegals end up becoming legal and voting for Republicans (which is unlikely), the conservative disgust and abandonment of the GOP would outweigh any short-term gains the party might enjoy.
Yep, because they'll be driven from power immediately and the illegals will jump to the party that didn't fight rewarding their illegalities. Political stupidity at work here. I do find it amusing it's the Rockefeller wing that hates Christians, but the comparison to handing out absolution does ring true. LOL Of course they leave out repentence and consequence....
The bill passed last Thursday by the Senate genuflects toward tougher enforcement of the border and penalties on employers who knowingly hire illegals, but it is like the sinner who gets absolution without real repentance. It is political fraud perpetrated on the public.
Bingo! Ergo, the sinner learns nothing and continues in his/her lifestyle.
O.t.! Rush just called out the administration's "spin machine"! YES!!! he's calling names. Called out Barnes and Kristol. Said those stating the administartion is over if they don't have a "bill", overlook that to the conservative base Bush is already done on THIS issue. Yes, the syncophants are going to hate Rush now. They can't stand conservatives calling it like it is. :-)
Rep. Charlie Norwood, Georgia Republican, sees through the sham. In a press release, Norwood calls the Senate bill an "amnesty bill" designed to give "preferential treatment" to illegals over American citizens. "This bill constitutes treachery against U.S. sovereignty," said Norwood, (and) "allows every illegal alien in America to use the fraudulent document industry they have created in the criminal back alleys of our country to claim they have been here five years and can now stay forever. They have granted blanket amnesty for citizens of foreign nations against tax fraud, Social Security fraud, Medicare fraud, identity fraud, and bank fraud - all crimes for which there is no forgiveness or mercy for citizens of the United States."
Add Norwood to the list that if he isn't a part of the signing of the bill, then Congress is lost!
By the Rutenberg standard, Norwood would be placed in the "intolerant" wing of the GOP. The congressman says, "The physical results of this bill, while terrible, do not equal the moral devastation this sell-out would produce. There is one overpowering message in this bill - that the law no longer deserves respect in America."
AMEN!
The outcome of "immigration reform" will determine where the party and country are headed. If Republicans lurch to the left, they'll head for the cliff because the left did not bring them to power. The right did. If they have forgotten that, they deserve the cliff and the right should give them a push.
Cal is an unappeaseable! Not a true conservative! A fringe right winger! A Bush basher! What else party syncophants?
Exactly right. If they think they can get enough illegals to make up for us, so be it. I somehow am sceptical. I think instead they'll end up where they were before the "yahoos" made them the Majority party.
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.