But with the 2006 midterm debacle, they have stooped to new lows in their disingenuous and absurd attempt to spin the election results as being a vote for their far-left views on immigration. Whether its cherry-picking the defeat of a few high-profile 'restrictionists' and ignoring the losses suffered by proponents of 'comprehensive' reform, or citing polls that offer bogus choices, there really is no limit to what the likes of Jacoby (and Barnes and Kristol) will say to push their agenda of virtually unlimited immigration.
The same polls the Jacoby types misuse to claim public support for their amnesty plans showed that the GOP lost because of Iraq and corruption. So it is an especially great display of chutzpah for neoconservatives to ignore the political effects of the war they wanted so much in explaining the GOP rout, all to prop up the very liberal, very pro-Democrat views they hold on immigration.
And for all the talk about polls, it should be noted that pro-comprehensive reform polls are bogus for two reasons;
(1) They almost always present it as a choice between only a path to citizenship or mass deportations, while completely ignoring the enforcement first/attrittion strategy.
(2) The least attractive parts of the 'comprehensive' bills rarely get any public attention. I wonder, does Jacoby really think that the public would support the comprehensive approach and its 'earned legalizations' and 'paths to citizenship' if they knew it would result in enormous increases in permanent legal immigration? Would they support it if false descriptions like 'temporary workers' and 'guest worker plan' were not used? Why are the comprehensive bills so deceptive?
Why do McCain and Kennedy, as well as Jacoby and Barnes and the head of La Raza, the NYTimes and WSJournal, not get out there and advocate on behalf of massive increases in permanent legal immigration? Why don't they tell us they want tens of millions more immigrants on top of those that current law would admit? If they are so confident in the popularity of their agenda, then why do they go to such great lengths to mislead the public about their agenda?
The immigration system isn't broken. It's being ignored. We need immigration policies that allow people to immigrate, while allowing the nation to control its borders - just like other nations of the World.
The bio I read on this "female" said something like she was a beacon of debate in a foggy light. Her thinking does seem very foggy and she seems to be itching for a chance to jump up and argue.
It is illogical to deny the elections were a huge win for the illegal immigration lobby.
Excellent post. Those who love open borders should read these two threads posted today. I had a close friend involved in an accident yesterday with an illegal driving with a revoked license. Fortunately, she was not injured. He ran into her while she was at a traffic light.
Study: 1 million Sex Crimes by Illegals
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1745570/posts
Illegal aliens murder 12 Americans daily.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1745034/posts
Ping!
ping
She didn't call names. She said that "(it) perpetuate(s) the myths already taking hold that R stands for “restrictionist”"
She's actually refuting a name that others are calling, not calling a name.
Tamar, clean your own darn house. It's great for the character.
Tamar Jacoby's analysis is correct.
Get back to me when 2 GOP cnadidates Randy Graf and J.D. Hayworth in the border state of Arizona and who made hardline immigration their main campaign topics are speaking from the well of the House floor.
They won't be in the 110th Congress, since they lost.
R also stands for Rule of Law, something the sovereignty sellouts care nothing about.