Skip to comments.CPAC’s idea of a worthwhile discussion of immigration reform
Posted on 03/13/2013 5:07:27 PM PDT by AuntB
CPAC has received considerable attention for its exclusion of the gay conservative group GOProud and its refusal to invite New Jersey governor Chris Christie. I agree with not inviting Christie (for me, embracing a leftist president days before the election is a bridge too far), but would have liked to see GOProud included.
However, both decisions can be argued either way, and I cant get worked up over either.
CPACs panel on immigration reform, which has received virtually no attention, is another matter. The panel is called Respecting Families and the Rule of Law: A Lasting Immigration Policy. The five participants are:
Dr. Whit Ayers, President, North Star Opinion Research
Daniel Garza, Executive Director, The LIBRE Initiative
Helen Krieble, Founder and President, The Vernon K. Krieble Foundation
Jennifer Korn, Executive Director, American Action Network
Moderator: Helen Aguirre Ferré, Host, Zona Politica on Univision Radio
All five support comprehensive immigration reform, although Krieble seems prepared to settle for something less than comprehensive.
Why no opponents of amnesty and a path to citizenship for illegal aliens? Not because opposition falls outside the bounds of conservatism. As Mark Krikorian points out, a recent survey asked likely voters whether they would vote for a political party that supported enforcing immigration laws as opposed to a party that supports legalizing illegal immigrants. Conservative likely voters favored the hypothetical immigration hawk party by 73 percent to 14 percent.
If CPAC believes that conservative voters want amnesty and citizenship for illegal aliens, they should check with Rick Perry. His primary campaign began to skid when Mitt Romney attacked him for wanting to confer less signicant benefits on illegal immigrants.
So does CPAC seek to expand its tent to include more Hispanics? Maybe. But a big tent rationale wouldnt exclude GOProud. And it certainly wouldnt exclude conservatives who arent behind the push for amnesty and citizenship for illegal aliens. As noted, such conservatives constitute a majority of the movement.
Most likely, CPAC excluded those not on board with comprehensive immigration reform because it wants to serve big business which, for reasons of self-interest, tends to favor such reform.
In short, the fix seems to be in.
Related: This is about a month old, but wasnt posted, and everyone needs to read it. It gives insight into big amnesty boss Grover Norquist, but also Marco Rubio, who according to the article, refused to allow what he called anti immigrant groups such as Numbers USA, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), and the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) a voice in the discussion. Rubio & Norquist are both aligned with SPLC on this one and are using SPLC material and propaganda to silence them!
Effort to change immigration law sparks internal battle within GOP
Conservatives who are taking on the groups, including Rubio, anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and officials of the Catholic Church, argue that the three organizations are motivated by far different philosophies than many of their Republican allies realize.
Rubios aides last week brought one of the organizers of the effort to undermine the groups, Mario H. Lopez, a party strategist on Hispanic politics, to a regular meeting of GOP Senate staffers, at which Lopez distributed literature about the groups backgrounds and connections. Rubio also raised concerns about the groups leanings during a recent conference call on immigration with conservative activists.
Rubios spokesman, Alex Conant, said the senator has argued that some groups that oppose legal immigration should not be considered part of the conservative coalition,
AND a followup to this article:
Grover Norquist Attempting to Smear Anti-Amnesty Groups as Leftist Eugenicists
February 15, 2013
[snip]At the heart of the attack is the accusation that the leading members of some groups critical of immigration policy were or still are environmentalists and liberals. This attack piggybacks on earlier work by the Southern Poverty Law Center that used some of the same information to accuse those groups of being tied to Neo-Nazi and White Supremacist groups.
Theres something rather strange when conservative sites not only begin advocating for illegal alien amnesty, but begin repeating the claims that the Center for American Progress, Mother Jones and the Southern Poverty Law Center were making about anti-immigration groups 5-10 years ago.
The same Norquist tactics being used to attack the anti-immigration movement can and will be used to attack the Counterjihadist camp. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2996456/posts?page=12#12
Cuban born Al Cardenas (endorses gang of 8 amnesty), head of ACU, along with Grover Norquist run CPAC and are using the tea party label under teaparty.net & TPNN to further THEIR GOALS. THIS is the enemy within!
Do you think Cardenas & Norquist dont know that aliens will vote democrat???
Do those things and illegal aliens will deport themselves and pay for it out of their own pockets.
Legal immigration is an entirely separate issue.
I’m sure all of our elected officials have “spokesmen”.
But I really think it is carp. Give me a break. Speak for yourselves.
In regards to illegal immigration reform...I am sadly positive that it will pass this time. The Pubs think it will bring them votes.
You convinced me, but if you put that plan up at CPAC this year, you’ll get called a racist and worse. If they let you in, and they likely won’t...they’re hiring extra security this year. They’ll slander your good name. That’s the place where ‘conservative’ policy is made and candidates are picked and it’s as corrupt as it gets.
What do we do about that? They’re going directly against 75% of their ‘base’ on just this issue. And they don’t care, they just count the $$$ that rolls in from the duped ‘conservative’ masses.
See also today: Why Has CPAC Banned All Panels About Islam?
Ever since Jorge Bush introduced the idea of comprehensive immigration reform, the left has run with it.
However, IMO, we already HAVE comprehensive immigration reform in the form of existing immigration laws. If we would enforce the existing laws, we would resolve about 85% - 90% of illegal immigration issues.
However, it is clear what BOTH parties are seeking with comprehensive ommigration reform - a permanent second-class level of “citizens” who will always vote for Democrats (even though the ‘Pubbies are deluded enough to believe that the new second-class citizens will always vote GOP-e if THEY enact it!).
IMO, it is clear that this issue is going to ultimately be resolved to the disadvantage of native-born and naturalized Americans and cheapen American citizenship as long as the politicians are involved. IF we need a new immigration plan, the LAST people who should create it are politicians. The rule of law should decide, NOT the greed of men (or women) who would be king!
“Ever since Jorge Bush introduced the idea of comprehensive immigration reform, the left has run with it.”
Do you know that Grover Norquist, the subject of corruption at CPAC in this article, IS the author of the Bush Amnesty? And that it was he, at Karl Rove’s behest that brought in the radical islamists into the white house, along with Jack Abramoff? The left isn’t nearly as big a problem, or scandal as the ‘conservatives’ running the show and CPAC.
I will stand for reason and the rule of law no matter what they call me. What can we do? Support politicians with spines. That’s all I’ve got. The compromises I’m hearing are unacceptable to me.
You are on a roll. I bet myself that you would mention Grove before the second comment and I won, I think.
After all your posts I am not going to be able to resist watching it to see what they say.
Normally I blow it off for something important like Gilligans Island.
It used to be that the party that wasn't the president's party would be the “loyal opposition”. Instead, today, they both suck and America is the poorer for it literally and figuratively (my tagline states how I REALLY feel!).
I'm in favor of dumping the whole rotten mess nd starting over with the government that the Founders created for us. It is absolutely criminal, to me, that they had to leave the care and control of the most brilliant form of government ever created to those with lesser abilities, substantially lesser ethics and virtually no discernible morals!
“You are on a roll. I bet myself that you would mention Grove before the second comment and I won, I think.”
You could say that I’m on a Jihad! ;<)
Good job AuntB! CPAC is a trfecta of anti-American, Islamist, Sexual perverts and Hispanderers. I hope to see McCain’s little prick Rubio bounced out of the Senate in the next election.
Here is some more about CPAC and Mario Rubio being pro-open borders. Glad we caught this pretty boy rat before he could do more damage.
Cardenas & Norquist...
Yeah, Norquist is trying to deminish and kick out the true conservatives from the Republican party. It appears that he is trying to replace the true conservatives with Hispanics, moderates and gays. He is a fool as well as a creep.
Do you know what groups have voluntarily dropped out of CPAC and if attendance has gone down this year?
Sorry, don’t know offhand. It will be interesting to find out.
Immigration is really the litmus test of conservatism.
You nailed it exactly.
The litmus test for me are pro-life issues like abortion, euthanasia and the 2nd Amendment. “Immigration” is a red herring. Illegal aliens aren’t immigrants. Border security isn’t about immigration it’s about sovereignty and security.
To think that just a couple of years ago Rubio was the golden boy of conservatism. It only goes to show that not all that glitters is gold. We definately have to learn more about our candidates. We have been fooled many times before because we leap to embrace people who look good, sound good but we do no know how they stand on ALL the issues.
Immigration separates the wheat from the chaff because the true patriots are for the nation, not for foreign interests or special political or money interests. Many politicians are very good speakers, have very good speech writers and many handlers telling them what to say and what not to say. We have to wait awhile before we embrace them as our true saviors.
Thank you. JimRob said so too so I must be on the right track! ;-)