Posted on 07/03/2013 6:36:09 PM PDT by drewh
The Wall Street Journal editorial page has attacked opposition to the immigration bill that passed in the Senate last week, urging the Republican-led House to "improve" the bill, "not kill it."
The bill's border security provisions, the Journal argued, were not weak, as conservatives had charged, but were "wretched excess," the result of "the Republican party letting its blood-and-soil wing trump its supposedly free-market principles." It might seem odd to attack "blood-and-soil" conservatives (a phrase of Nazi provenance, evidently) on the eve of July 4th. But one need not wave the American flag or protest the obviously offensive connotations of the insult to defeat the Journal's arguments for the Senate bill.
By arguing that economic growth should drive immigration reform, the Journal actually undermines the "Gang of Eight" legislation it attempts to defend.
The editorial states, up front, that its "preferred" option for immigration reform "would focus entirely on easing the way for more people to come legally."
Border security plays no role whatsoever in the Journal's considerations.
That is an astonishing position for a newspaper that has taken a strong stance in favor of the war on terror, including, recently, a strident defense of the National Security Agency's surveillance powers.
Furthermore, border security is not just about stopping terrorism. It is also about the rule of law. And the rule of law, in turn, is fundamental to economic growth. The Journal well understands that fact. It co-publishes an annual "Index of Economic Freedom" with the Heritage Foundation, in which "rule of law" is not just one of the criteria, but the first criterion for economic freedom, before limited government and open markets.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Sorry to bring bad news, livius.
“Racheal” IS an immigrant!
Non-citizen permanent resident status exists in many countries world-wide (heck, in Japan, it exists multi-generationally, which wouldn’t happen here), was proposed quite seriously during the campaign by Newt Gingrich, and supported by the Heritage Foundation.
Congress having the power to regulate immigration and set requirements for citizenship would be perfectly within its rights to establish such a status. Make a challenge to it a poisoned pill by including a limited non-separability clause so that if a provision creating such a status is held unconstitutional, only the tightened enforcement provisions are separated, and other parts of the law desired by business constituencies, Hispanic rights groups and the left go down with it. The leftist professional Hispanics would howl, but surveys of ordinary citizens (not residents of the U.S., citizens) of Hispanic ancestry show they aren’t gung-ho for rewarding illegal immigrants from their homelands with citizenship.
The Wall Street Journal.... Aren’t they the same assclowns who are apologizing NOW for going soft on Mengelecare back in 2010? Yeah, the Wall Street Journal has credibility. I care what they say. Right.
Pew Surveys also show:
(1) First generation Hispanics vote 80% for the Democrat Party.
(2) Fourth generation Hispanics vote 60% for the Democrat Party.
Several million of your “non-citizens” will have citizen anchor babies, which will immediately cloud the status of their non-status parents.
Several million will marry US citizens, creating new status issues.
In 2014, all 11 million will be standing in front of the Lincoln Memorial, hyped into a political frenzy by Obama and the Gang of Eight, shrieking for citizenship.
And you, Dave, will be back here at FR explaining why Conservatives must go along with that.
The market should be the determiner, not the command economy promotion of illegal alien job (and welfare) thievery.
I'm so tempted to drop the WSJ...
“and Robert L. Bartley, the legendary Conservative editor,”
That cretin? He wanted a Constitutional Amendment that read “There Shall Be Open Borders”
I don’t miss him one bit.
But not ANNIE COULTER....... She’s out there everywhere fighting tooth and nail..... Like the timeless patriot she is.
Which brings us to the "path to citizenship" for the estimated 11 million illegal residents already living in the U.S. Conservatives are again calling this "amnesty," though the bill requires that illegal residents pay fines of $2,000 and wait at least 13 years before they can become citizens, and bars them from welfare or ObamaCare as they wait. The question restrictionists don't like to answer is what is their alternative? As Florida Republican Marco Rubio says, current law is itself a form of amnesty because no one thinks those already here will leave or be deported.
The WSJ has always been ‘in the tank’ for undocumented democrats.
I agree. Here’s how to improve on the Senate’s bill: close the border and systematically find and kick out the burglars that have sneaked into our country.
And who are these conservatives? Are they they ones who came up with the concept of "Homeland Security"? Oops, that was the progressive Bushies and liberals who invented the Homeland Security Department. Do you feel safer now?
Blood and soil is associated in the public mind with Nazis. Avoid it, come up with another term. You know, like "creepy ass cracker" isn't a racial term.
Do you suppose this has anything to do with Fox censoring Rush.
If Bartley were still alive today and still pursuing the same goal, I would denounce him just as you have.
But, between 1965-1995, immigration was not a major issue, and Bartley was a passionate and gifted defender of just about every other thing I believed in.
You got that right! And before we increase the quotas for foreign engineers, maybe we should try to hire unemployed US citizens who are over 40.
“But, between 1965-1995, immigration was not a major issue, “
You mean it wasn’t a major issue for you.
It was already a major issue in California long before 1995, which is why Prop 187 passed in 1994.
The people of California had already experienced a deluge of illegals and we were fed up with GHW Bush and Clinton’s refusal to enforce the penalties included in the 1986 Reagan amnesty. So we passed a state law to do what Bush and Clinton refused to do.
And had either of those useless Presidents done what the law requires of them instead of ignoring it then the problem would not have grown geometrically. The fact is that they ignored the law and instead followed the advice of the border-despising Bartley, whose name should be synonymous with treason motivated by greed.
But, I don't think Clinton and GHWB needed Bartley’s advice concerning enforcement.
Clinton could count, and he knew 80% of first generation Hispanics voted for Democrats.
GHWB was a center-left Republican, a New England patrician by birth, and he governed that way any time he thought he
could get away with it.
Today, I completely reject Bartley’s immigration policy.
But 50 years ago, Bartley, and Bill Buckley, and Barry Goldwater were the only Conservative game in town.
WSJ has DAILY columns promoting amnesty. A globalist, POS rag!
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.