Posted on 07/12/2008 1:29:37 PM PDT by MrCFdovnh
He hasn’t said it, yet.
I “look for him to begin saying”...
I’m speculating. He’s got to find a way to appease the ‘no amnesty/enforcement’ crowd, without directly addressing the issue of amnesty. So, like many of the pro-illegal immigration candidates who are no longer in this race did, he can insist that he is pro-enforcement, when his unspoken intentions would be to enforce the immigration laws, but only AFTER amnesty for illegals and their employers is passed.
For many, his touting an enforcement mantra could lead them to believe enforcement = no amnesty, when, as I described above, that is NOT necessarily true.
As is often the case, it isn’t what they say, it’s what they don’t say.
That because they're racist as hell...and would rather fill the country with Mexicans and get them in power, rather than worry about competition for their jobs...how dumb is that? Legal Mexicans should be just as pissed off as anyone over interloping invaders....
That's exactly what happened....only intelligent Hispanics don't buy into the anti-illegals=anti-Hispanic BS. Unfortunately the masses swallow it hook line and sinker...
No, illegals don’t “reduce costs for consumers”, since there are billions and billion of dollars in soft costs that are paid for by those same consumers in their role as taxpayers.
For example, the current sub-prime banking disaster was fueled by mortgages made to illegals.
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.