In the end, standing on principle is the winning strategy.
I agree with Krauthammer.
Democrats are committing demographic suicide by aborting their young and glorifying those who can never bear children of their own.
Soon all that will be left is the 47% and when the money runs out, so does that constituency.
“in return for full border enforcement”
laughable. Even if the ‘pubs had won by the same margin the marxist POS did, there would not “full” be enforcement at the border. Too many pro-illegals in the border states.
As much as I respect Krauthammer I can’t agree with this.If non-citizens get to sneak into this country and are then allowed to stay permanently that means that if I manage to sneak into Krauthammer’s house and hide in his basement for a while I eventually get my name placed on his deed as co-owner.And although my current house is solid,comfortable and respectable I’ll wager that it’s not *nearly* as nice as his so I just might give it a try.
I’m done with US politics and will in future try to focus more on that kingdom not of this world of which Our Lord spoke to Pilate. However, I think Krauthammer’s suggestion is a reasonable suggestion for going forward. The amnesty part of the amnesty plus enforcement won’t be welcomed here, of course, but I think if the Republicans are to have any future, they have to try to win a bigger chunk of Latinos. Also agree that in other respects, conservatives should not compromise on conservative principles. That said, I think we’re in civilizational collapse and that it is all pretty much rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Feeling very Eeyorish today.
We’re going to have to talk about crime. Because there will be lots of it when things go down the drain.
“Standing on principle is the winning strategy.”
It’s what is right AND the right strategy. - If pandering to a Hispanic constituency that, like all Democrats, demands “freebies” and “Santa Claus presents”, consists of having to buckle under to their demands for a blind eye to illegal immigration - then they’ve made their bed, let them lie in it. - It’s dishonorable and unfair to all those who have come here for centuries the legal and honest way. Their Santa Daddy Obama is going to eventually run out of other people’s money. Let him have his adoration and then FLUSH!
Romney’s message - Work hard and I will assure you an opportunity to achieve the American dream.
Obama’s message - I’ll make everything fair, give you the American dream and someone else will do the work for it.
Now which one do you think resonates?
“The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.”
- Alexis de Tocqueville:
He could not be more wrong about Hispanics. They want free stuff. Maybe they are socially conservative, but they are driven by the same thing that the rest of the 47% are. They want other people’s money.
Obviously not all, but the majority.
This is fantasy, not reality.
We cannot solve our problems by telling ourselves comforting delusions. We must face facts as they are.
This describes a PART of the hispanic community, but it does NOT describe the majority of the hispanic immigrants who came here over the last couple of decades.
The illegitimacy rate among hispanics is 53%. If most hispanic babies are born to unwed mothers, why on earth do people keep parroting the bit about family values?
And statistics show hispanics taking government assistance at much higher rates than native-born non-hispanics.
We COULD have controlled the border over the last 20 years and only admitted immigrants who would have not looked for government handouts and would have had children within stable families.
We did not. We left the border open, and what we got was the most unskilled and uneducated part of the population south of the border, along with massive infiltration by criminal narcotics cartels.
Since this demographic is strongly supportive of socialistic politicians south of the border, will someone please explain to me how migrating across a river magically changes their political outlook?
A signficant part of the hispanic population ARE conservative, but it is not a majority. We need to appeal to those whom we can and work to control the border and enforce the laws.
With one foot on principle and the other on compromise with principle?
I understand the human side of this equation, but you had better sell locking down the border first or you will further split the party you think you're trying to unite.
Their one foot on principle, barely, and the other on compromise with principle is why people shun the party now, even when faced with likely total destruction.
My guess is, those principled voters won't understand your abstraction on something as important as illegal immigration, not unless you are rock solid that the border will be locked down.
Remember, we have history with this issue and did amnesty once before. It was a failure. Those around Reagan claimed he regretted it and would not have made that mistake again if he could do it over.
You should study history more. Look into the antics of Wilson and FDR, just to name a couple.
obama said he was going to be as creative as FDR was to solve the problems he faces in his second term.
To be honest? It's amazing we've gotten this far. On the other hand, maybe we're tougher than we think to have survived all that's been thrown at us.
Mostly nonsense. Most of the Hispanics whose families are established and have been in the US for several generations probably fit that description. But the still poor and the recent arrivals are here to improve their standard of living, whether from work or government welfare prorams, or both. That's their number one priority and usually remains so for several generations. They are natural Democrat voters, and the Dims are not at all confused about it as Krauthammer and so many others seem to be.
Go away, Charles. Just. Go. Away.
Krauthammer is a fool. He knows nothing about the immigration issue and the impact of an amnesty.
Any legislation that legalizes the status of those who broke our laws by entering our country illegally and allows them to stay and work here is amnesty. We must not only prevent the Democrats and some moderate Republicans from hijacking the meaning of the word amnesty, but the public must be made aware about the true impact of an amnesty.
The Heritage Foundation concluded that the cost of amnesty would be $2.6 trillion just for increased entitlement program costs. And the number of additional LEGAL immigrants who would join those who were the recipients of amnesty through chain migration, i.e., family reunification, would approach 70 million over a 20-year period, assuming there are only 12 million illegal aliens. We cannot assimilate such numbers. An amnesty would destroy the United States of America with the stroke of a pen.
Conferring rights and privileges upon illegal aliens has a corrosive effect on the Rule of Law, the very foundation of our Republic. It is also a slap in the face to legal immigrants who have followed the rules and obeyed the laws. There are 4 million intending immigrants waiting their turn overseas to enter the U.S. legally. They have completed all the paperwork--background checks, physicals, etc. Some have been waiting overseas for years. We admit 1.2 million legal immigrants annually more than the rest of the world combined. What kind of message does this send to people who want to enter the US legally or illegally? Many will come to take part in the next amnesty.
Reagan signed a "one time" amnesty in 1986. The proponnets said it would be the only amnesty ever. The government estimated that 1 million would apply, the true number turned out to be 2.7 million. The process was rife with fraud. And once the word got out, we were flooded with new illegals who entered to take advantage of it even though you had to be resident in the country for five years. The estimated illegal population ranges from 12 to 30 million. We really have no idea how many are here. The administration of an amnesty would be fraught with problems and could present national security risks. One of the participants of the 1993 WTC was given amnesty under the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli act. The 1986 amnesty was supposed to solve the illegal problem. Now we have 12 to 30 million illegals.
And to top all of this off, we are providing the Dems with more voters even though Krauthammer the Fool believes that we can legalize their status and not give them a path to citizenship. There is no way the courts will approve of second class citizenship. And all of these new legal residents will be able to collect welfare benefits including Obamacare. This is insane. If the Reps go along with this, we should form a third party. It is treasonous.
Ah, yes, 1986 ... I remember it well ... "normalization" and "border enforcement" worked so well then, we should try it again!