Posted on 01/08/2004 2:28:13 AM PST by ambrose
Sure, it's compassionate with an emphasis on the "ass". Which is right where this one will kick us.
Bush's proposal is so utterly unworkable that the only thing it would accomplish is to impose yet another level of beauracracy on American businesses and taxpayers.
They are not immigrants, they are illegal aliens and the path should lead to deportation.
"It is important that we make sure immigrants enter the country the right way, and ensure that we do so without undermining important national security concerns."
Try guarding the border and punishing employers who hire illegals.
"It is the right approach."
Not in my opinion, it isn't. The right approach would not allow illegal aliens to remain in this country.
And voting you out of office, in favor of some cheesy 'Rat timeserver.
Read your newspapers; David Brooks (of Weekly Standard editorial staff) recently wrote in the Grey Lady that "compassionate conservatism" is on the way out. Bush and Rove are looking for a new Republican paradigm. Brooks suggested "reform" (as in, Fighting Bob LaFollette?!), which would turn Dubya's McKinleyite administration into a Bullmoose one.
But "compassionate conservatism" is supposedly a dud. (Don't get mad at me, I'm just telling you what some connected journo wrote.) And the Bush people are going to junk it.
The opposition to SB60 (illegal alien drivers licenses) last year and the support for Prop 187 ten years ago extended far into CA's middle.
Not the quality, but just the political slogan and the "compassionate conservative" campaign idea. They want to replace it with something else for this year's campaign. David Brooks suggested "reform"; my own guess is that the campaign appeal will center on competence and dedication instead. Which weakens the Party's position for 2008, when the Beast Woman will break cover and make her charge.
Irrelevant. They're here illegally, and they're breaking both laws and wages. They're also screwing up our politics. How can you attract hard-working young blacks to the GOP with a promise of move-up jobs if rich GOP employers are cynically using illegals to break wages and keep U.S. citizens pushed to one side?
Helllllooooo! Please read what you just wrote. Then really think about what will be necessary to administrate President Bush's proposal. More importantly, Bush's proposal, to actually work, presumes that we gain effective control of the border. If he can presume that that will be achieved in the future, he should implement it now as a show of good faith.
Bush's proposal, as presently formulated, is election year, pie-in-the-sky nonsense. Think about "anchor babies". Think about the media's presentation of stories about guest workers and their families being escorted out of the country after 6 years. Just how long would politicians hold up that end of the bargain under that kind of pressure? In practice Bush's plan would be a disaster for this nation.
By California terms, so is Diane Feinswine. She's a "moderate" to the California electorate (here in Illinois-- which is definitely NOT 'conservative' by any means, Feinswine would be a kooky Chicago type politician and Arnold would be a Mark Kirk-type RINO)
What's your point?
You know why California has these kind of low standards? Might just have to do with half their citizens not speaking English anymore.
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.