DUMPING CONSERVATIVES AT THE BORDER

Laura's Weekly E-Blast ^ | 1/8/2004 | LAURA INGRAHAM

[kellynla]

I am beginning to think John McCain actually won the presidency in 2000.

Conservatives were relieved when the Straight Talk Express petered out during the 2000 primary season. John McCain, although tough on national security and runaway spending, was hardly a conservative on major issues such as campaign finance, healthcare reform and immigration.

Yet this is exactly where we find President Bush today (except unlike McCain, Bush doesn’t seem to have much of a problem with runaway spending). Last year President George Bush signed the McCain-Feingold bill into law, which is one of the worst assaults on political speech this country has ever seen. When conservatives (and many liberals) howled, the President’s advisers whispered that they believed the Supreme Court would “clean up” the more onerous parts of the bill which dictates the types of political ads that can air before a general election or primary contest. Of course the Supreme Court rubber stamped the entire thing and so the result is less, not more political speech in the U.S.

And now President Bush charges across the landscape to rescue us from our “unfair” and “broken” immigration system by rewarding people who came here illegally with the promise of legal status. This proposal essentially mirrors the immigration legislation sponsored by—you got it—Sen. McCain. Under the Bush/McCain plan, anyone outside the U.S. who wants to come into the country would only need to show proof of a “job offer” in order to get an initial three-year work permit that would be renewable for an unspecified period. Such temporary workers could also bring family members here. What prevents these people from staying on beyond their time premitted for "temporary" work? As it stands now, there seems to be no limit on the immigration —temporary or permanent— allowed under this plan. And as for the claim that this would be a big boon to the American economy? Illegal immigration costs taxpayers $20 billion each year, in extra education, healthcare, welfare, and prison costs. Today thirty-four percent of Mexicans legally in the U.S., and 25 percent of Mexicans illegally here are welfare.

How are those costs diminished under the Bush plan?

Most bewildering is the Administration idea that this plan is necessary for homeland security reasons. On the contrary, it would not be surprising if some would-be terrorists are among the millions of illegals who will become “documented” under the Bush plan. As Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) charged, "Guest worker programs and gradual amnesty provide cover for terrorists."

It’s easy to understand why Vicente Fox, McCain, big business, and La Raza are happy this week—but what’s in this new proposal for working class American families? How about those immigrants who a lot of time and money to comply with our immigration laws?

The real answer is absolutely nothing. The only reasonable prediction is that wages for a wide range of jobs will be kept artificially depressed by outside workers—now with “legal status” will work for peanuts. “I have worked construction for 30 years as a truck driver (18-wheeler),” wrote one of my listeners, “And every year my pay has gone down because Mexicans are flooding the trucking industry…."

When Bill Clinton says we live in an “increasingly borderless world,” we’re not surprised. It’s the usual globaloney blather. But when a Republican president advocates a policy that will make our borders effectively meaningless, we should be outraged.

With his approval numbers high, President Bush has made a devil’s bargain with business and Hispanic groups. Elites from both parties are ignoring the view of a strong majority of Americans that we need to stop illegal immigration, not high-five it.

Another listener wonders: “What happened to the ‘party of principle’? More like the party of pandering. Considering the massive numbers involved, this amnesty being floated really is Pandora's Box, once opened cannot be closed.”

President Bush has now done the equivalent of posting a sign at the border: “Help Wanted for $5.15/hour.”

Conservatives are right to be disappointed in President Bush. We are right to ignore the Administration’s promise that this time, non-amnesty amnesty will be good for the American people. Our citizenship and legal residence should be reserved for people who love this country enough that breaking her laws—whether at the border or on the street—is out of the question. The next time I hear from his Administration that it is doing all it can to protect our homeland, secure our borders, and increase our standard of living, I will laugh.

Now I know the definition of “compassionate conservative:” a person who campaigns as a conservative, then sells out key conservative principles.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I'm waiting kelly...

Dazzle me with your brilliance.

[SerpentDove]

While I said I'm not an expert (and I am not) I will say that here where I live, if a policeman dicovers that someone is an illegal alien, he is prohibited from contacting INS or arresting the person.

They have to let them go on their way.

That, to me, makes no sense. What is the reasoning behind this? I'm no expert, but I almost think it is reasonable that the person should be put on a bus with a sack lunch and a soda pop and sent back to Mexico.

???

At least that seems reasonable to me, but maybe that is cruel and horrible and only Nazis would do that.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...he'll be losing a good many from his base."

I love that...his "base".

Here's a clue...the base of a triangle is not its narrowest point.

His "base" does not consist of the 3% that will vote third party next election.

His base IS the majority who will vote him back in office for a second term.

[SerpentDove]

>> Illegal immigrants have absolutely no incentive to sign up for these visa's. They already are working here and getting paid under the table and they do not have to pay taxes. Most likely they are getting paid better as illegal.<<

I know! These are concerns I have, and I think it is only reasonable that the President address them.

[onyx]

Good post, #143, Luis. Thanks.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Well, that doesn't make any sense to me either, and that's something viable that we COULD impact as a forum.

If a person is found to be here illegaly by any law enforcement agency, they should be able to somehow get this person to the proper authorities.

And while I don't condone the idea of police officers acting like immigration agents, they should be able to at the very least, contact the INS.

[SerpentDove]

It's the strangest thing.

?

[Mamzelle]

Ralph Nader gave him the presidency, and he's not running this time around. But the libertarians are still doing their spoiler game, and I hear there's this new party called Constitution. I'll still vote for Repub Senators and Congressmen. We'll see if diplomatic efforts like yours will win votes or ALIENate them.

[Mamzelle]

Or don't you remember the 15,000 Fla votes that went to Nadar, that probably wouldn've gone to Gore?

Hm. I thought Gonzales ended in an S.... Curious...

[Luis Gonzalez]

Gonzalez ends with an "s" if you are from Mexico, I am Cuban by birth, and Spanish by ancestry.

That's what you get for thinking.

[Mr. Mojo]

He won't get any new Hispanic votes, but he'll be losing a good many from his base.

He'll lose only a few from his base (most will hold their noses and vote for him come election time), and he'll get a few new Hispanic votes, but not enough to make a difference. You're right, Hispanics will still overwhelming vote 'Rat regadless of what Bush does.

Vote pandering is usually aimed at the center of the political spectrum, and if polls are any inidication, the majority of the center is staunchly against Bush's proposal. Either the WH miscalculated or there's another reason for this. Perhaps it's political payback to campaign contributers whose businesses desire cheap labor in return for filling the GOP coffers. ......Many possibilites exist.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Ralph Nader gave him the presidency"

You see, the conservative "base" was not a factor even by your own conclusions.

By the way, how the opposition voted only decided who the opposition supported.

Bush won the election by virtue of a massive shift back to the GOP by American citizens of Cuban descent in the aftermath of the Elian Gonzalez fiasco.

Elections are decided by the center, not the fringes.

[Mamzelle]

Interesting. All my students' Gonzales names ended in S. When I typed in your name in the "to" box, I used S, only to find it didn't work.

[Mr. Mojo]

bttt

[Happy2BMe]

BUMPING ABSOLUTE TRUTH!

[Mamzelle]

re: Bush won the election by virtue of a massive shift back to the GOP by American citizens of Cuban descent in the aftermath of the Elian Gonzalez fiasco.)))

I know. The whole election swung on Clinton's pandering to Castro, and the abusive Janet Reno. I don't know what lesson Rove took from all that, but it was not the right one.

But Nader took the only hope Gore had--and Nader's not here this time. 15,000 liberal votes would have done the job. There is also the libertarians to consider--they took votes away from Bush, and they're still around.

[Happy2BMe]

"Now I know the definition of “compassionate conservative:” a person who campaigns as a conservative, then sells out key conservative principles."

In a word - RINO

[Mamzelle]

There is no need for draconian measure. Simply go after the employers.

In El Paso of the eighties, affluent ladies who wanted maids at starvation wages had to fear having their pretty little cars confiscated when they drove maids around.

So embarrassing for the white ladies. It kept a lot of them from breaking the law.

[Happy2BMe]

"Today the GOP is like the corpse in 'Weekend at Bernies', being driven around by a couple of smart*sses calling themselves 'fiscal republicans'."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The last Republican to serve in the White House was this man . .

(Unfortunately, the U.S.A. is unable or unwilling to produce another leader such as Ronald Reagan.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This idea that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves." -- Ronald Reagan's Speech at the 1964 National Convention: A Time for Choosing

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~