Posted on 01/08/2004 3:34:13 PM PST by 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.
Please reread what I wrote: I said "most of your illegal aliens." I.e., most of the apprehensions would come from traffic stops. You'd still have a tiny minority of illegal aliens apprehended, and that number would decline.
Perhaps then we'll need a law stating that one must commit X number of moving violations per hundred miles or be pulled over for driving in a suspiciously innocent manner. (That's sarcasm, by the way.)
You seem exceptionally touchy this morning, I'll assume you're angry at something somebody previously said and it's carrying over.
My ire tends to increase in direct proportion to the stupidity I run into--and stupidity has been in excess supply of late on FR.
Well, it's not like Bush has spent the last three years paying back his conservative base for his victory in 2000, is it?
It's not like the conservative base actually gave him the victory in 2000, is it?
Tax cut
End ABM Treaty
Killed Kyoto Treaty
Restored Reagan's policy re: abortion funding
Tax cut
Banned partial-birth abortion
OK, none of these were conservative issues, were they?
One can sincerely believe hyperbole--but it is still hyperbole.
If they'd bothered to f***ing vote on Election Day, the election wouldn't have gone to the courts. And the Supreme Court didn't change it's decision because of the protests. That makes the protests not only unnecessary, but pointless.
OK, none of these were conservative issues, were they?
I thought these were Republican issues. If these are solely conservative issues, then what the hell do you non-conservative Republicans stand for?
Nope. I am a conservative. I don't pretend that we are the "base" when 4,000,000 more conservatives voted for Bob Dole than for George Bush. That fact places us in a bit of a bind--namely, Bush doesn't owe us a damn thing, and he can ask us "What have YOU done for me lately?"
You may not like it, but patronage is the mother's milk of politics. Politicians are quick reward their friends. They are slow to grant boons to those who don't help them. Bush's support for conservative initiatives is actually rather atypical.
My "hatred" of conservatives is a hearty and healthy dislike for those who have talked much and done little. When you have to cite the protests--the protests that could have been avoided had the "conservative base" actually shown up--as evidence of what conservatives did for Bush, you merely underline the fact that we conservatives have done very little for him, but constantly demand a great deal in return.
But, Poohbah, is it really demanding such a great deal that Bush not reward with an amnesty people who have demonstrated such utter contempt for our country by trampling our immigration laws?
There are many millions of people around the world who have been playing by the rules, patiently waiting in long lines to come to this country legally, having faith that their patience will be rewarded by the U.S. The amnesty just spits in the face of those who would respect our laws. It's a travesty.
Do you have a better proposal that can actually be implemented? Speak up, lad!
That's exactly what I thought, though I actually would've been satisfied w/ just the Mexican border. That was the time for it to occur, and I've (very reluctantly) forced myself to accept the fact that 'sealed borders' will never happen. Somewhere down the line, we'll find out what the real deal made was between Fox and Bush. Since Vicente Fox said in 2000, that he looks forward to open borders w/ Canada and the USA, it irks me to think that Globalism has been encroaching faster than I ever admitted to myself in this, our Northern Hemisphere. I'm darn glad though to see the E.U. bickering/publicly saying 'this won't work'/not following the rules they've set forth for themselves, that makes me smile.
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.